Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Hospitals, Leicester

Mr. Peel: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present to the House a Petition emanating from my constituency concerning the urgent need to fix a firm and early date for the construction of a new maternity hospital in Leicester and for other work to be done at Leicester hospitals to reduce the seriously long lists for admissions.
This Petition relates to one signed by more than 9,000 of the citizens of Leicester, which has already been presented to the Minister of Health.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR (TALKS)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been reached in the talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent talks between the British Government and the Spanish Government about Gibraltar.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Spanish talks on Gibraltar.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the talks with the Spanish Government representatives on Gibraltar.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): At the talks on 18th May, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated the Spanish Government's case and made proposals for an Anglo-Spanish Convention concerning Gibraltar. I replied with the statement of Her Majesty's Government's position. Copies of Senor Castiella's statement and verbatim extracts from my reply were placed in the Library on 19th May.
It was agreed that the talks should be continued between officials of the two


Governments and an initial meeting took place on 20th May.

Mr. Farr: In view of the Spanish Foreign Minister's statement in Madrid on Friday, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how firmly he put to the Spanish delegation that the future of Gibraltar must remain firmly wedded to this country? Can he not, furthermore, agree that it would have been better if these talks had never been begun and if instead we concentrated on having the Spanish frontier restrictions ended?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will be able to see from the extracts from my statement that I put the position very clearly indeed. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that it would have been better if the talks had never been begun. The reasons for beginning them were explained to the House some time ago and I emphasised, of course, that talks were much more likely to be fruitful if the restrictions were removed and our firm belief that there is no justification for the restrictions.

Mr. Jeger: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his stand in defence of Gibraltar against the Spanish demands, may I ask whether he would not agree that, in view of the fact that the talks are continuing and their delicate nature, it would be advisable for the Spanish lobby of hon. Members of this House not to visit Spain during the Whitsun holidays as guests of the Spanish Government?

Mr. Stewart: I think that it would be desirable to refrain from anything that might prevent the talks from resulting in a removal of the restrictions on Gibraltar.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of saying on the Floor of the House that there is no intention in his mind of making any bargain over the sovereignty of Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: I have stated our position concerning the sovereignty very clearly indeed, and I stated it also to Senor Castiella.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm statement which he made in reply to the Spanish Foreign

Secretary has been well received in Gibraltar and that, in particular, his regard for the feelings of people on the Rock has been widely appreciated? I should like to ask two questions. First, is there any indication that the blockade will be lifted? Secondly, does not the suggestion that Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht be cancelled indicate by implication that the Spaniards have accepted the legality of our continued existence in Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Member for the first part of his question. I believe that it has had that effect in Gibraltar.
I am hopeful—I ought not to say more at present—that one result of these talks will be the establishment of a civilised relationship between Gibraltar and Spain. It is true that in the view of the Spanish Government, which has requested the cancellation of Article 10—I want to state the position quite fairly—the Treaty of Utrecht establishes British sovereignty to the Rock and Fortress. The Spanish Government made a number of comments about what, they claimed, were violations on our part of the Treaty of Utrecht with which I could not agree.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Gibraltar authorities have been kept fully in the picture during all these discussions?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. The House knows what the position is. Gibraltar is not, and does not want to be, an independent member of the Commonwealth. It wants its position to be substantially as it is now. Consequently, the talks are conducted between the British and Spanish Governments. We do keep in touch with, and are well informed of, Gibraltarian opinions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conclusions have been reached in discussions with the Indonesian Government on the manner in which British financial assistance will be employed.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will


make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to aid for Indonesia.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received as to how the £1 million given to Indonesia will be spent.

Mr. M. Stewart: I explained the policy of Her Majesty's Government to the House on 29th April, when I described our offer of one million pounds of emergency aid. Negotiations with the Indonesian Government are still proceeding and we hope to have a formal indication of Indonesian requirements very shortly. We shall then be able to decide on the best and speediest means of meeting their requests.

Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure that our gift to Indonesia is provided by way of goods and services rather than by cash? Is he aware that there are many ways in which the living standard of the teeming millions in Indonesia could be raised, and that our exporters would welcome every opportunity to help?

Mr. Stewart: We are awaiting a statement from the Indonesian Government of what goods and services would be most helpful to them. It is probable that most of them will be supplied from this country. The whole gift was related to the economic needs of Indonesia.

Mr. Blaker: Has the Government's offer of £1 million in aid been accepted in principle by Indonesia, and what is now the attitude of the British Government towards the supply of aid to Indonesia by those Governments which are friendly towards Britain? Are we now encouraging such aid?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member may recollect that when I first made the statement to the House about this, it was made at that time because it had then, and not before, been accepted in principle by Indonesia. Our gift followed gifts by a number of our friends and we are fully in sympathy with their attitude in making those gifts.

Lord Balniel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the nature of the talks now taking place to end confrontation?—Can he say

whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to play a part in these talks?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can say very much about the progress of the talks. It is, I am glad to say, the fact that there are to be talks between the Indonesian and Malaysian Governments. The part which we shall play has yet to be considered, but we are anxious to do anything that we can to bring confrontation to an end on terms acceptable to both parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH ARABIA

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consideration he has given to seeking United Nations assistance in South Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: As I told the House on 16th May, I have asked by noble Friend Lord Caradon to discuss with the Secretary-General the acceptance of the United Nations resolutions by the Government of the Federation and their invitation to the Secretary-General to appoint an observer to attend the conference to be convened by the Federal Government.

Mr. Campbell: Failing any firm international arrangements to guarantee South Arabia's frontiers, will the British Government be prepared to help withstand a confrontation there in 1968, in the way that was done for Malaysia?

Mr. Stewart: The House knows what the Government's views are with regard to any defence agreement with South Arabia. What is to be both hoped and expected is that there will emerge from the conference to be convened by the Federal Government a stable form of Government and a secure future for Southern Arabia.

Lord Balniel: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered asking the United Nations to delineate the boundaries between the Yemen and the Federation of South Arabia, and to have observers there during the very dangerous situation which is likely to arise following on the creation of a kind of power vacuum resulting from the withdrawal of British troops from this part of the world?

Mr. Stewart: Not at this stage. As I said, our representative in New York is to discuss the matter with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is possible that the kind of development which the noble Lord has in mind might emerge, but it is too early to say that yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC STAFF, EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (SECURITY)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what security briefing is given to members of United Kingdom Embassy staffs before taking up appointments in Iron Curtain countries; and what is the ratio of numbers of United Kingdom diplomatic staff in Iron Curtain countries to the numbers of diplomatic staff from those countries in the United Kingdom.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): All members of the Diplomatic Service before being posted to the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe with Communist Governments are given a full briefing which includes a course covering all aspects of security.
The ratio of diplomatic staff between the United Kingdom and these countries is approximately 3:4. If non-diplomatic staff are added the ratio becomes approximately 2:3.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMBASSY STAFFS, UNITED KINGDOM (DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with Iron Curtain countries about diplomatic privileges for their embassies' staffs in the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Thomson: My Department is in constant touch with the embassies of the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe about matters arising from the provisions of diplomatic immunity.

Mr. Iremonger: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a little further consideration to this, bearing in mind that, since the Russians have never made a very clear distinction between diplomacy and

espionage, the situation at the moment is just a little unbalanced in favour of potential enemy countries?

Mr. Thomson: Espionage is quite a different matter. On the question of providing diplomatic immunities, we are anxious, as the hon. Member knows, to safeguard the position of our own people in the embassies in Communist countries, and this has to be done on a basis of reciprocity.

Oral Answers to Questions — "SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE IN FRANCE" (HISTORY)

Mrs. Lena Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the fee paid to Mr. M. Foot for writing the History of the "Special Operations Executive in France", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office; what were the terms of the contract; and what agreements were made about the time to be spent on this work.

Mr. George Thomson: Mr. Foot was paid a fee of £4,761 5s. 10d. Between November, 1960, and December, 1962, when he produced the first draft, he was engaged full time on the book. His subsequent work was on a part-time basis.

Mrs. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Foot has stated publicly that pressure of work and other contracts affected his work in this connection? Is is not unfortunate that an official history of the war, presumably intended for posterity, should be written under some pressure of time, especially in view of the painful controversies which have arisen?

Mr. Thomson: The facts which I have given to my hon. Friend about the time that Mr. Foot spent on the book are an adequate answer as to the careful scholarship that he gave to it. This view is confirmed by the fact that the book has, generally, been well reviewed by serious reviewers.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask what Mr. Foot received for his part-time contribution in view of the fact that normally people who are engaged in writing also receive a commission from the publisher on the book when published?

Mr. Thomson: Mr. Foot was paid £1,800 a year during the two-year period that he worked full time on the book. He also received £300 on completion of the first draft, and £600 for his subsequent work on the book. The arrangements made with Mr. Foot for a fee to be paid rather than an arrangements involving royalties is the normal arrangement for official historians.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (BONDED DEBTS)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken since last February to obtain a measure of agreement with the Hungarian Government over the Hungarian repayment of bonded debts.

Mr. George Thomson: Further discussions with the Hungarians have taken place since last February and are continuing.

Sir W. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people in this country are gradually beginning to feel that the Iron Curtain countries want to become more friendly with us? Is he aware that militating against that, especially in the City, and amongst the bondholders, is the irritant of the non-settlement of these debts? Could he not let us know a little more about this, so that many people who feel that Parliament should be dealing with this matter rather than it being dealt with through secret diplomacy, could know where we are?

Mr. Thomson: I understand the hon. Member's feelings that this is taking a long time, but it is not uncommon for discussions of this nature to last over a long period. I regret that I cannot give more details at the moment. The talks are confidential and it is really in the interests of the people he has represented in this House that I should not say more at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPE (NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in Europe remains part of Her Majesty's Government's policy; and what steps he is

taking to bring it to a successful conclusion.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 12th May.

Mrs. Short: Will my right hon. Friend consider starting discussions between the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers so that Labour Party policy can be implemented? Does not he think it time that we had a Socialist foreign policy in this respect?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will remember that part of our party's policy is firm support of N.A.T.O. and that we could not make progress on a matter like this except in concert with our allies. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to seek better understanding between East and West both on these and other matters. I have been engaged in exchanges with Eastern European countries which have this in mind.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must not go into the implementation of the Labour Party's policy, but is not the fallacy in the proposal of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) that Germany is covered by medium- and long-range nuclear weapons far outside any area of possible disengagement, and unless there were conventional thinning out at the same time the balance of military strength would be seriously upset?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman may remember that we have explained in previous statements on this matter that arrangements for a nuclear-free zone must be with the consent of the countries concerned and must not be such as to upset the military balance in Europe. But I do not take so negative a view of the matter as he does.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has to support and encourage moves to establish a dialogue between East and West Germany.

Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government have noted with much interest


the recent exchanges between the West German Social Democratic Party and the East German Communist Party, S.E.D. They hope that if the proposed meetings between the two parties take place they will lead to progress on the path to reunification and to increased freedom of movement and of information throughout Germany.

Mrs. Short: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will say a few words on the lines of his reply to me to Chancellor Erhard when he comes to this country?

Mr. Stewart: The Answer which I have given is now public knowledge and expresses the view of the Government about the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH VIETNAM

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the anti-democratic views expressed by the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, he will now withdraw British diplomatic personnel from that country.

19. Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now withdraw recognition from the Saigon regime, on the grounds that it is unstable, not in control of most of South Vietnam, unrepresentative of the Vietnamese people and entirely dependent on money, arms and military, naval and air forces supplied by a foreign Power.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.

Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend consider the proposition that, leaving aside any material resources, the moral and spiritual resources of Britain could be better devoted than to serving the cause of this squalid cardboard oriental Hitler?

Mr. Stewart: I do not accept my hon. Friend's last words. The Question which he asked me was whether we would withdraw diplomatic personnel, that is to say, break off diplomatic relations with a country, because of anti-democratic views expressed by its Prime Minister. If we took the view that we should break off diplomatic relations with a country because the members of its Government expressed what we regarded as anti-democratic views, it might reduce

international relations, but it would not improve them.

Mr. Zilliacus: But if the reasons adduced in Question No. 19 are not sufficient to withdraw recognition, is not the fact that this gentleman has now upset even his American patriots by starting war on the Buddhists, burning their sacred temples and slaughtering their priests, a reason for withdrawing recognition; or is there no limit to the Government's supine iniquity?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend urges withdrawal of recognition on the different ground of what he claims is the instability of the Government and their lack of control of their country. We have to notice, however, that this Government is the only body claiming to be a Government in South Vietnam. I should have thought that the improved stability of this regime and the conduct of elections, as is now proposed, was the objective for which those of us who want peace in this country should work. I do not think that it would be helped by the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would the Foreign Secretary affirm that we should strengthen rather than weaken our missions in the difficult circumstances in this country?

Mr. Stewart: We certainly want to he as well informed as possible of developments there. But I think that we are.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Foreign Secretary consider taking the views of the Law Officers on the many points of international law which arise out of the Vietnam war?

Mr. Stewart: I will consider that.

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, he will seek to secure international supervision of the proposed elections in South Vietnam.

Mr. M. Stewart: We would, I am sure, all welcome internationally supervised elections throughout both North and South Vietnam. At present, however, they are impossible in the North and the elections in the South are part of a programme agreed by the various political and religious groupings in South Vietnam. I hope this process will lead


to the first steps towards constitutional rule.

Mr. Luard: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are doing and will continue to do everything in their power to ensure that these elections do take place as has been promised?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, so far as we can influence the course of events there, our wish would certainly be that those elections should take place.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Could the Foreign Secretary, looking at the turmoil in South Vietnam, give the House some idea how he visualises the ultimate future of that country? Is it to be unified? Is it to be independent? Can we know what is in his mind?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think I can really do that in answer to a supplementary question, but if the hon. Member would will the statements I made in April and the latter part of last year he will see generally how I hope and believe the future of that country should be developed.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the policy of privately working for peace while publicly supporting the war in Vietnam to prevent the continuation and aggravation of that war, he will now abandon that policy and oppose United States military intervention in Vietnam as a violation of the United Nations Charter.

Mr. M. Stewart: I do not contemplate any change in our policy, which is based not on supporting the war but on bringing it to an end by negotiations.

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the long-continued failure of these alleged attempts to bring about peace while publicly supporting the war, does not my right hon. Friend recognise that this policy has failed and is proving morally ruinous to this country? Will he not change it?

Mr. Stewart: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should use the words "alleged attempts" at negotiations. The efforts which the British Government have made to get negotiations on this matter are well known. It is true that they have

so far failed, and it is perfectly clear where the responsibility for that failure lies——

Mr. Manuel: In Washington.

Mr. Stewart: —but I do not believe that is a reason for giving up attempts to bring this war to an end by negotiation.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government still support the bombing of North Vietnam by the American Air Force and whether they have sought to impose any limits on that bombing in the last few weeks apart from the earlier limitation the Government sought to the bombing about Hanoi and Haiphong?

Mr. Stewart: The position there is as it has been, and what we want to see is the, end of all military activity by both sides in this war, but I do not believe that it is right, while one side refuses negotiations, to tell the other side that they should refrain from certain military measures. As to the extent of the bombing, we have been informed and are still informed by the United States that if there were any change in their policy in that respect we should be consulted first.

Lord Balniel: As our long-term line of policy in this part of the world must be to establish independent, neutral, nonaligned countries, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a contribution to the holding of peace talks if the United States Government were to declare that this was their long-term objective?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I think that is a reasonable suggestion.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what cooperation exists between the British Advisory Police Mission in Saigon and the United States Military Police.

Mr. M. Stewart: None, Sir. I have previously made clear to my hon. Friend that the mission is concerned with the advice and training of the Vietnamese civil police.

Mr. Hughes: To what authority in Saigon is this British Mission responsible? Is it not a fact that the police who are now breaking up the Buddhist demonstrations in Saigon have been trained by British officers who are paid with money that comes from the British taxpayer?

Mr. Stewart: This mission is responsible to our Government. Its task is the advice and training of Vietnamese civil police. It is a small mission. Its advice is not always followed, but I believe that its influence is valuable.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects were killed or wounded in the shooting affray in the streets of Saigon on 10th May.

Mr. M. Stewart: None, Sir.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that Answer, but may I ask my right hon. Friend whether this incident in which soldiers machine-gunned women and children after having, as their own officers said, panicked, makes him more than ever proud of the unfailing support which he gives at least publicly to the American military effort in Vietnam?

Mr. Stewart: I think that my hon. Friend's words misrepresent the Government's policy. Our policy throughout has been to preserve peace—[Interruption.]—and, I would remind my hon. Friend, to reach peace by negotiation, and what started this incident was the explosion of a land mine which killed a large number of innocent civilians. I do not think that anyone would wish to defend that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations on the problem of nuclear sharing within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in discussions with allied governments on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reorganisation.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet reached a common position among the 14 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, other than France, for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting in June.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been discussing with a number of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments the problems raised by recent French moves in N.A.T.O. Discussions amongst the 14 members of N.A.T.O. concerned are continuing. These matters are due to be considered at the meeting of Ministers of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels at the beginning of June.

Mr. Blaker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his noble Friend the Minister of State responsible for disarmament has said very recently that schemes for a joint nuclear force present an almost insuperable obstacle to any agreement for the banning of the proliferation of nuclear weapons? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the Government's proposal for an Atlantic Nuclear Force?

Mr. Thomson: I do not accept the Hon. Gentleman's paraphrase of my noble Friend's views. The Government's proposal for an Atlantic Nuclear Force still lies on the table, and we are ready to look with an open mind at the problem of dealing with the question of nuclear reorganisation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the Foreign Secretary advise the House on the broad political principles on which he is looking to the reorganisation of N.A.T.O., and specifically would be say what arrangements he is making to ensure the security of the allied forces in Germany in the sad event that the logistic supports coming through France were to cease to be available?

Mr. Thomson: The principles on which we are approaching this matter are, first, that we want to come to satisfactory arrangements with the French, despite their decision, to continue to be associated with the alliance; secondly, we believe that the Organisation itself should remain integrated and be modernised and streamlined; thirdly—and this is a very important principle—we believe that one of the main points of doing this is not simply to look backwards to the kind of rôle which N.A.T.O. played in the past, but to look forward in a search for a political solution with the Communist world.

Mr. Ridley: Can the Chancellor of the Duchy say why he transferred my Question to the Foreign Secretary and did not


let me know that he was doing so? Will he in future answer Questions on this subject at No. 35 on Mondays? Is he quite clear that it would be a great mistake in our negotiations for the future of N.A.T.O. to do anything which may make it harder for this country to accede to the Common Market if and when the opportunity arises?

Mr. Thomson: I do not think that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question arises at the moment. On the first part, I am sorry if he did not receive notice of the transfer. I certainly understood that I had sent him notice personally. The fact is that Questions relating to my responsibilities within the Foreign Office go, in the first instance, to the Secretary of State. Questions relating to my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy go down in the normal place, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PROTECTORATES, SOUTHERN AFRICA (SOUTH AFRICAN SECURITY FORCES)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what approaches have been made to the South African authorities recently over recent kidnapping and other illegal action by South African security forces in the British Protectorates in southern Africa.

Mr. George Thomson: None, Sir. I am not aware of any recent cases of the kind described in the question.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon Friend aware that special branch people from South Africa go into the Protectorates to intimidate and to harass refugees from the South African régime? Would not he agree that this Government and this country have a moral responsibility to give adequate protection to those people from South Africa who are fleeing from the racialist tyranny existing there?

Mr. Thomson: I agree about our responsibility for people who are our citizens and British Governments have always sought to carry this out. The last occasion on which there were cases involving people from the Protectorates was very nearly two years ago. But we are, of course, constantly vigilant about this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN TEACHERS (VISIT)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements he has made for the visit of 20 Russian teachers to this country; and if, in particular, he will cancel that part of the visit which involves the Holborn College of Law, Language and Commerce, where Mr. Gerald Brooke formerly lectured.

Mr. George Thomson: The teachers have come to Holborn College under the Anglo-Soviet Cultural Agreement. Arrangements were made a year ago in consultation with the Department of Education and Science. In view of Mr. Brooke's connection with the college, the college authorities were consulted before the arrival of the teachers. They agreed that the course should be held as previously planned.

Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think this is an example of rather tactless rubbing of salt into wounds, and, in any event, whether he agrees with that or not, will he and his right hon. Friend now make representations to the Russians that their point has been fully made, and that, really, an act of clemency would do more to contribute to cultural relations than anything else?

Mr. Thomson: There are other Questions on the matter raised by the hon Gentleman in the second half of his supplementary question. Of course, we are continually pressing this matter on the Russians. On the point we feel that by far the best way to bring home to ordinary Russians the feelings of repugnance of the ordinary citizens of Britain about this is to allow them to rub shoulders with them in a British college.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While not disagreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether he does not think that this will be regarded abroad as an extraordinary example of national masochism? Did not the Foreign Office give any advice at all on this matter?

Mr. Thomson: I do not agree with the hon. Member and his generous first clause seems utterly to contradict the second half of his question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (MICHAEL DINGAKE)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make further representations to the South African Government about the case of Michael Dingake, in view of the fact that the South African police officer who carried out the illegal arrest in Rhodesia admitted in court that he knew at the time that Dingake was in possession of a valid Bechuanaland passport.

Mr. George Thomson: Her Majesty's Ambassador made further representations on 16th May to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Pretoria.

Mr. Steel: Have any replies been received to those representations?

Mr. Thomson: No. Not yet.

Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind, what anyone who has recently visited Bechuanaland will be aware of, that this is one of the incidents which causes the most concern to people in that Protectorate, and that it is absolutely essential that the Government should stand fast in protecting the rights of our citizens there?

Mr. Thomson: Yes. I take my hon. Friend's point. We are very vigilant to do everything we can to protect our citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (WESTERN FRONTIER)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how far it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to recognise the incorporation of the former Danzig Free State in Poland; and to what extent that policy allows for revision of the status of that territory at a peace conference with Germany;
(2) how far it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to renegotiate the Soviet-Polish border across former East Prussia at a peace conference with Germany.

Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government's attitude is based on the Potsdam Agreement under which, pending the final determination of Poland's western

frontier, the former German territories east of the Oder and Neisse rivers including the free city of Danzig and that part of East Prussia not placed under Soviet administration were placed under Polish administration.

Mr. Brooks: But is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Potsdam Agreement stipulated that it was to be the western frontier of Poland whose final delimitation was to be contingent upon a peace conference with Germany and that neither of the territories mentioned in these Questions lies to the west of Poland?

Mr. Stewart: I think none the less that the answer I have given does set out the Government's view on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to broaden the base of entry into the administrative class of the Foreign Office and to the Diplomatic Service.

Mr. M. Stewart: We are very keen to broaden the base of entry to the Diplomatic Service. This will only happen if more good candidates apply. Lack of knowledge of what the Diplomatic Service has to offer has been the greatest problem in the past. During the past year contacts with universities have expanded and I hope that, with wider knowledge of the opportunities, candidates of the right standard will come forward in increasing numbers from all universities.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proportion of the intake from public schools and from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge of some 75 per cent. of the total since 1945 is unsatisfactorily high? Will he give an assurance that in each of the next five years he can cut down intake from these sources to not more than one-third in each year, to encourage applications from other sources?

Mr. Stewart: I think my hon. Friend will agree that we must have regard to trying to recruit people best fitted for the job. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think the trouble has been that


it has been widely believed in the past that only candidates from the older universities would be successful, and that, therefore, there was an unwillingness among candidates from the newer universities. As he knows, I have been striving to break that vicious circle by increasing our contacts with the newer universities, and I hope and believe that we shall have an increased number of applications from the newer universities and be able, thereby, to get an intake which is both of the right quality and more representative of the nation as a whole.

Mrs. Renée Short: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many candid lies came forward during the last five years from the older—provincial universities to the Foreign Office?

Mr. Stewart: Not without notice, I am afraid.

Mr. G. Campbell: While widening the field of applicants, as the right hon. Gentleman has said he will, will he none the less make sure that the best candidates among those who come forward get accepted into the Service?

Mr. M. Stewart: It is our aim to accept the people who are really fitted for the job, and the best among those who apply. But it is not a healthy state of affairs if, with the growing number of universities in the country, it is not realised in some of those universities what are the opportunities in the Foreign Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (UNITED NATIONS REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose at the next General Assembly of the United Nations a resolution for the seating of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations, and move that this matter be regarded as a procedural question requiring acceptance by a single majority vote.

Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's representative has for the last few years voted in favour of a resolution to seat the Chinese People's Republic. As there has been no lack of sponsors, I do not consider that there is any need for Her Majesty's Representative to move such

a resolution. On the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave to the then hon. Member for Ashfield on 15th November, 1965.

Mr. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the peace of the world may rest on the entry of China into the United Nations, and that that entry should take place sooner rather than later?

Mr. Stewart: That is something that we have said on many occasions and shall go on saying.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the admission of China into the United Nations is so dependent on Taiwan, could the Foreign Secretary say what the present policy of the Government is on that question?

Mr. Stewart: It would be better if the hon. Gentleman put down a Question on that.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matter to be decided is not China's membership of the United Nations, since China is a member? It is simply a question of the credentials of her delegates, if and when the Government of Peking send them. Is not that a matter to be settled by a simple majority?

Mr. Stewart: If one interprets the word "China" strictly, it is true that China is a member of the United Nations. As my right hon. Friend says, it is a question of which Government represents China. But I do not think that one can maintain, particularly in view of the position of Taiwan, that it is purely a procedural matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS (SALES)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what machinery has been established to ensure that the sales policies to be adopted by the proposed head of defence sales take into account the possible political consequences of these sales and conform to the current policies and proposals of Her Majesty's Government in relation to disarmament.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what


assistance he is giving to the newly appointed arms salesman to sell arms in foreign countries.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps we will take to ensure that the activities of the armaments salesman and their consequences conform to Her Majesty's Government's disarmament policies.

Mr. M. Stewart: Arrangements exist for reviewing the political and other factors involved in the formulation of arms sales policies. Her Majesty's Government are committed to complete and general disarmament, but until positive measures to this end can be taken by international agreement it is in our interests to maintain our share of the arms market.
I would carefully consider any proposals made by the Head of Defence Sales for improving sales methods involving the Diplomatic Service.

Mr. Dickens: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the appointment of a Head of Defence Sales has caused much resentment on this side of the House and among our supporters in the country? Is he further aware that the appointment will undermine the functions of the Minister for Disarmament, and will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to reconsider the entire matter?

Mr. Stewart: It is not right to say that the appointment undermines the work of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Disarmament. We are engaged in trying to get disarmament by international agreement. It does not follow that, failing such agreement, we should deny ourselves all access to arms markets.

Mr. Hughes: Is not our most formidable competitor in the arms sales racket the United States of America? Is the arms salesman going to follow the idea outlined in the speech of the Prime Minister in Washington, that we will knock hell out of the Americans? Is that going to be the procedure in every embassy throughout the world, competing with people who are supposed to be our greatest allies?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. The position is as I described, that until we can get a

widespread measure of disarmament by international agreement, it is reasonable that this country should have a share of the arms market. That is the purpose of this appointment.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that the sale of arms to one country often induces its neighbours to place orders in competition, thus encouraging the arms race? Are there not signs that that is already happening, for example, following the deal with Saudi Arabia; so that what is good for the arms manufacturer is bad for peace?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will notice that I said in my Answer that arrangements exist for reviewing the political and other factors involved in the formulation of arms sales policies. The point that he has mentioned is one of those political factors.

Mr. Peyton: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he were to give way to the argument of his hon. Friends, it would mean complete capitulation to the Americans? Would he not also agree that, however adequate our arrangements may appear to be, they are still nothing like sufficient to match the actions of the Americans, which sometimes go well beyond what many people regard as fair?

Mr. Stewart: I will not accept the last part of that supplementary question. I never regard with enthusiasm questions from any part of the House which seem to be designed to create between us and the Unites States.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of how many British soldiers have been killed since 1945 with British arms that we have sold to people who later entered into hostilities with us? Can he calculate from that the average value of exports per British soldier killed so as to persuade us that the balance of the argument lies in favour of continuing this dirty trade?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will know that I cannot give him a statistical answer in the form in which he put his question, and I do not think that he really expects me to. He must ask himself this question. Is it his view that, in a world which has not yet achieved


international agreement on disarmament, we should not sell arms at all?

Mr. Mikardo: Yes, that is my view.

Mr. Stewart: That may be his view, bat I do not think that he has thought oat the implications of that sufficiently; and it is not the policy of the Government.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Since the case for this country not selling arms abroad in the interim phase pending comprehensive disarmament is obviously stronger if we can feel satisfied that, if we do not sell those arms, no one else will either, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any other nations and, if so, which, whatever their political ideologies, have a self-denying ordinance about the sale of armaments which they are in an economic position to sell?

Mr. Stewart: Speaking without certainty, to the best of my belief, I do not think that there is any nation which does that.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important and significant things that this country might do as a contribution towards eventual peacemaking is to spend money on research into what the alternatives are for those people now engaged in the defence industries, so that they might know in good time what other work is available for them should peace break out?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend knows that in the Foreign Office we do conduct studies of that kind and of other problems affecting disarmament.

Mr. Dickens: In view of that highly unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise the matter again at the earliest convenient opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (RECOMMENDATION)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has resulted from the Government's discussion with the allies in Western European Union of the recommendations in paragraph 3, page 3, of Document

354 of the Western European Union Assembly to evolve a common European approach to the problems of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and other international problems.

Mr. George Thomson: The Council of W.E.U. has forwarded a reply to this recommendation to the Assembly. I am circulating it in the Official Report.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy has been able to take action, because Western European Union will be meeting in a fortnight's time. Will he continue to urge on the other Governments in Western European Union the importance of taking early action on the recommendation of the Parliamentarians of the Six and Britain, in view of the importance of the reconstruction of N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Thomson: We support the need for close and continuous consultation laid down in the recommendation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to attend the W.E.U. meeting and speak in that sense.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the Order Paper is always full of Questions on the reconstruction of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and as it will govern the security of Western European Union for many years to come, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if we can have a debate on it, I would suggest, shortly after the Ministerial Council meeting in Paris?

Mr. Thomson: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Following is the information:

Reply to Assembly Recommendation 127 on the state of European security

As stated in the reply to Recommendation 126, the Council agree with the Assembly that the maintenance of peace and security in the area covered by the North Atlantic Treaty depends to a large extent on close collaboration between the allied powers in both the political and military spheres.

2. As the problems raised in the first paragraph of the Recommendation are essentially of concern to all the member States of the Alliance, the Recommendation has been transmitted, together with a copy of the present answer, to the North Atlantic Council.

3. The Council share the Assembly's desire for greater progress towards an equitable sharing of the armaments programme of the


Alliance; and, as noted in the reply to Recommendation 118, they agree that industrial collaboration should be encouraged and promoted wherever possible. The Council have, moreover, approved the main lines of the study by the Standing Armaments Committee of arms co-operation and elaboration on certain points.

4. With regard to paragraph 3 of the Recommendation, it is the constant aim of the Council, at their regular meetings at ministerial level, to promote close and continuous consultation between member States on all problems of common concern.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding an application to join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to probe the French Government's attitude towards British membership of the European Economic Community.

Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to the statements by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 26th April and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st April.

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a decision is made to withdraw from E.L.D.O. it will seriously retard the acceptance by the European nations of the welcome decision by Her Majesty's Government to join the European Economic Community? Will he, therefore, oppose any such breach of the agreement with E.L.D.O.?

Mr. Thomson: I am sorry, I gave the hon. Gentleman the Answer to the wrong Question. I thought that I was answering Question No. 30.

Mr. Speaker: The Answer was to Question No. 30. B>I think that the supplementary question was on the wrong Question.

Mr. Royle: On a point of order. My supplementary question was to do with Britain joining the E.E.C., and was very much related to Question No. 30, and indeed to the right hon. Gentleman's answer.

Mr. Thomson: I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question and the answer to that is that that is really another Question, which is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Royle: On a point of order. The Minister is avoiding my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister can avoid a question.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of confusion sums up very well his Government's policy on Europe? Can we once and for all have a clear answer? We have had statements from the First Secretary of State, from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and from his right honourable self. Do the Government wish to join the European Community, or not?

Mr. Thomson: I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and any confusion was on his side, as it turns out, and not mine. As to the substantive point, we have stated the position. We are ready and willing to enter the E.E.C., provided that there are proper safeguards for essential British interests.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I preferred his original Answer, namely, that he had nothing to say? The less he says about this the better.

Lord Balniel: Now that some Ministers have made the Government's policy clear on their determination to enter the E.E.C., does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread doubt in this country as to the terms which the Government are trying to obtain, particularly with regard to agricultural policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a clear and considered statement as to the terms which the Government are trying to obtain in relation to the E.E.C.?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the position of the Government, as I have given it, has been carefully considered. I think that it is the right position at this stage of our probing operations, and I am going to stick on that.

Mr. Richard: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to re-emphasise and reiterate the Government's commitment to the eventual economic and


political unity of the whole of Europe? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the entry of Britain into the E.E.C. would indeed be a powerful step in that direction?

Mr. Thomson: The Government see great advantages for Britain, for Europe, and for the world in a wider Eupropean Economic Community, provided that it safeguards essential British interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM (COMMONWEALTH MISSION)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Common wealth Mission on Vietnam.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this subject in reply to Questions on 1st March.

Mr. Campbell: Are the members of the Mission still in touch with each other, and have they recently been considering any possible action?

Mr. Stewart: They have not recently been considering any possible action, but if the opportunity arose I trust that the Mission would be able to perform the task which we had in mind when it was formed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (CASUALTIES)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many casualties have been sustained by military and civilian personnel in the last three years in Aden.

Mr. George Thomson: In South Arabia, which includes Aden and the Protectorate, during the last three years the, military casualties have been 74 killed 508 wounded and the civilian casualties have been 133 killed and 318 wounded. I am giving fuller details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is sufficient strategic value in the retention of this base to justify this substantial number of casualties among military and civilian personnel? Ought not we to take im

mediate steps, if at all practicable, to clear out of this place?

Mr. Thomson: This represents a tragic loss of life and damage to human life of both British civilians and citizens of Saudi Arabia, and I think that my right hon. Friend is right in taking from this that it indicates a substantial reluctance in the community in that part of the world to see a British base continue, and it was partly on these grounds, as well as on the grounds of our strategic decisions, that we took the decision we did.

Following are the details:

TABLE OF CASUALTIES


1ST JANUARY 1964-30TH APRIL 1966


ADEN STATE


Military
Killed
Wounded



1964
2
25
British



—
—
Local


1965
5
74
British



1
4
Local


1966
—
16
British



—
6
Local


Total British
7
115



Total Local
1
10



Combined Totals
8
125





Police
Killed
Wounded



1964
1
—
Local


1965
1
—
British



7
6
Local


1966
2
2
Local


Total British
1
—



Total Local
10
8



Combined Totals
11
8





Civilians
Killed
Wounded



1964
1
5
British



1
2
Arab


1965
2
9
British



22
77
Arab



1
5
Somali



2
3
Indian



—
1
German


1966
3
7
British



8
37
Arab



2
—
Somali



1
—
German


Total British
6
21



Total other races
37
125



Combined Totals
43
146

*Note: All Police casualties are included in the civilian casualties.

PROTECTORATE


Military
Killed
Wounded



1964
11
57
British



25
88
Local


1965
10
61
British



14
99
Local


1966
4
58
British



2
20
Local


Total British
25
176



Total Local
41
207



Combined Total
66
383





Civilian
Killed
Wounded



1964
25
42
Arabs


1965
57
109
Arabs


1966
1
—
British



7
21
Arabs


Total British
1
—



Total Arab
89
172



Combined Total
90
172



Total all Protectorate Casualities
156
155





SOUTH ARABIA (ADEN AND PROTECTORATE)


Military
Killed
Wounded


British Forces
32
291


Local Security Forces
42
217


Total Military Casualities
74
508




Civilians
Killed
Wounded


British
7
21


Arab
120
288


Somali
3
5


Indian
2
3


German
1
1


Total Civilian Casualties
133
318


Combined Total
207
826

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take the opportunity during his talks with the French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on the occasion of their forthcoming visit to London to discuss with them the future of Anglo-French co-operation in the European Launcher Development Organisation.

Mr. George Thomson: I hope we shall have opportunities to discuss this with

our European Launcher Development Organisation partners before then, in particular at the Ministerial meeting on the European Launcher Development Organisation on 9th June.

Mr. Brute-Gardyne: But can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no irrevocable decisions will be taken at this meeting on 9th June before the French Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary come to London? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it his business to see that the other Departments engaged in these discussions are aware of the disastrous effect which a British withdrawal from the E.L.D.O. project would have on our plans for closer relationships and perhaps entry into the European Community?

Mr. Thomson: I think that there is full awareness amongst the Departments concerned of the importance of this decision relating to the future of E.L.D.O., and we feel that it is in the interests of all member countries to ensure that the organisation's programme makes the best possible use of the technological and economic resources involved.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the Minister give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asked, namely, that the British Government will not withdraw from the E.L.D.O., in view of the damage which such a breach of faith would do to our relations with the E.E.C. countries and the prospects of our joining the E.E.C.?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot anticipate what will happen at the meeting on 9th June. Let us take first things first.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHRAIN

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make proposals for the conclusion of a new mutual defence treaty with His Highness the Sheikh of Bahrain.

Mr. George Thomson: No, Sir. Our existing defence agreement with Bahrain is satisfactory both to His Highness the Ruler and to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that this treaty is now more than a hundred years old, and as the word of the British Government about defence in that part of the


world is now not good enough, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be wise to negotiate a new treaty new rather than when we are just leaving?

Mr. Thomson: I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. It has been made clear to the Bahrain Government, and they have accepted it, that our decision not to retain military facilities in South Arabia after independence implies no change in our policy towards the Gulf, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are discussing with Sheikh Khalifa bin Sulman, Head of the Bahrain Government Finance Department, financial arrangements to implement the defence agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (TALKS)

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent official talks with the Austrian Foreign Minister.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Austrian Foreign Minister accompanied the Austrian Federal President during the State Visit which took place last week. On 19th May I had a meeting with Dr. Toncic-Sorinj. We had a very friendly discussion of a general nature about matters of interest to Her Majesty's Government and the Austrian Government.

Mr. Walters: Did the Foreign Secretary get the impression from these conversations that the Austrian Government are seriously attempting to become mambers of the European Economic Community while retaining their membership of E.F.T.A.? This would be an extremely interesting development.

Mr. Stewart: Dr. Toncic-Sorinj explained that matter on the lines of what was said by the Austrian delegate at the recent meeting of the E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council, on which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary will be answering a separate Written Question this afternoon.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Proclamation of State of Emergency

Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:
The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the present stoppage of work among merchant seamen having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended:
Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 23rd day of May 1966, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

Message to be considered upon Thursday.—[Mr. Bowden.]

PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Proclamation of emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.
As the House is aware, that Act, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, provides that if at any time it appears to Her Majesty that events have occurred, or are about to occur, of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community or any substantial part of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists; and Section 2 provides that where a Proclamation of emergency has been made, Her Majesty may by Order in Council make Regulations for ensuring the essentials of life to the community.
In advising such action the Government are following the precedents of 1949 and 1955.
Regulations under Section 2 of the Act have been made this morning and are being laid this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be making a business statement tomorrow informing the House of the proposed changes in business which will enable the House both to debate the Government's action in establishing a state of emergency and, if the House see fit, to approve the Regulations.
The House will have an opportunity of studying the Regulations when they have been laid but, in addition to dealing with control of port traffic and other aspects of work in the ports, they will deal with certain aspects of internal transport and the maintenance of other public services and essential supplies.
Perhaps I should inform the House that power is being taken also to make orders prescribing the maximum prices for foodstuffs. This power—and this is true equally of others which are made available under the Regulations—is at this stage a reserve power only, and the Government do not consider that the time has been reached when any orders under the Regulations are immediately necessary and no use will be made of them unless the need arises. It was, however, thought essential that the powers should be taken and that Parliament should be given adequate time to debate them. The Government will not, of course, hesitate to make use of the powers should this become necessary.
We are proclaiming an emergency because the Government must protect the vital interests of the nation. This is not action against the National Union of Seamen. We want the dispute between the union and the shipowners to be settled as soon as practicable, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has made clear his willingness to see representatives of both sides whenever it is felt that he can help them to end this dispute. He has, in fact, been meeting both sides this afternoon.
As was made clear to the Executive Committee of the National Union of Seamen when my right hon. Friend and I met them 10 days ago, the Government are well aware that one of the major contributory factors in this situation has been the failure over the years to deal with an

out-dated and archaic system of regulation of the terms and conditions of seagoing employment, particularly, of course, the issues raised by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. But whatever the outcome of the present dispute it is the Government's intention to arrange for a powerful, thorough and independent inquiry into all the complex issues affecting the terms and conditions of seagoing employment.

Mr. Heath: The declaration of the state of emergency, and the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, emphasise the extreme seriousness of the present situation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will agree with what he said, namely, that we want to see an honourable settlement of this dispute at the earliest practicable moment?
In the meantime, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that on this side of the House we believe that the statement that he has made about the Proclamation is justifiable in the circumstances? We shall wish to consider the Regulations when they are published and then, we understand, we shall have an opportunity of debating them later in the week.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. We understand that he and his colleagues, and, indeed, the whole House, will wish to study the Regulations which are to be laid today, for the debate which will take place later this week.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that no one will deny the damage done by the strike? Is he also aware that, in all fairness, I must put it to him that the National Union of Seamen has itself shown a certain understanding of the hardship caused? I was informed by the union this morning that it is allowing ships to sail to my constituency manned by members of the union.
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore at once appoint an independent inquiry to find out the facts behind this strike—for instance, how far wages paid to British seamen lag behind those paid to seamen of other countries, how far owners have fulfilled the spirit of the 1965 agreement over weekend working, and how far at any rate some packets of seamen seem to have been lagging far behind in the standard of wages paid?
Most people agree that we cannot afford to allow a low-wage shipping industry in this country when the rest of the world is moving on to better things?

The Prime Minister: I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—and certainly about the consequential effects of this very grave situation. The National Union of Seamen and the local strike committees have shown great understanding of the problems of individual areas and have made satisfactory arrangements to limit the damaging effects in those areas.
The reason for the Proclamation was that the main volume of imports into this country—not only food, but also raw materials—is becoming progressively and more damagingly disrupted. This is bound to affect employment fairly quickly, and is also affecting our export trade.
The question of the causes of the dispute which has arisen is an extremely complex issue. As I said last week, the Merchant Shipping Act was passed three years before Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, and it is long overdue for amendment. There has been the failure of the union over many years adequately to deal with the frustrations, grievances and legitimate claims of the seamen. There was also the event last year, to which I referred in my broadcast, namely, the stupid provocation by certain shipowners after the 1965 agreement.
Having said all that, however, I must stress that it is the duty of the Government, if a strike of this magnitude and damage occurs, to take the measures that we have taken this afternoon.

Mr. Shinwell: If as I understand from my right hon. Friend that there is an intention to meet both sides in the course of the day, will he for the moment ignore the proposal for a fact-finding inquiry, because that is bound to be protracted? Anyone who knows anything about the nature and causes of the dispute must realise that. What is wanted is to bring both sides together and try to effect a compromise.
It is obvious from what the General Secretary of the National Seamen's Union said that he is prepared for a compromise. This must be brought home to the Chairman of the Shipping Federation. Will he

understand that the seamen have some justification, even if it is not possible for the shipowners to concede the whole claim because of some economic and financial difficulties in some parts of the shipping industry and the country, and that at any rate they would be prepared to meet some part of the claim? The Government should direct their attention to a compromise of that kind.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is meeting both sides this afternoon. So far as I am aware—I have not had a report from him—he is still meeting the National Union of Seamen at the moment, unless that meeting has broken up. The question of the timing of an inquiry into these long-term problems, which, more than anything else, have brought about this situation, is a matter for discussion by both sides. We, of course, are prepared to start an inquiry as soon as possible, but we want to be sure that it will be useful.
When my right hon. Friend and I met the executive 10 days ago the proposal we then made, in addition to an interim settlement on top of last year's settlement, was that the inquiry, when set up, should address itself immediately and with great urgency to the outstanding problems between the two sides and only after that address itself to the much more difficult and complicated problems, which inevitably would take many months, of the Merchant Shipping Act and other questions. But we offered facilities for an immediate and urgent inquiry into the dispute which has led to this stoppage.

Mr. Bidwell: May I ask whether the part of the Prime Minister's statement which related to the offers of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to meet both sides of the dispute includes an effort to bring the two sides together at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I have just had a note saying that the talks are still going on at this moment. Of course, if a basis exists for a settlement the two sides can be brought together, but I must give my own impression, having spent two hours in these discussions 10 days ago. I believe that the accumulated difficulties, grievances, frustrations—and we must say this plainly—the failures of the union in past years to deal with these frustrations, and of the shipowners as well, were such


that I believe that if we had offered anything at all 10 days ago we would not have averted this strike and crisis. If agreement can be reached on satisfactory terms there will be nothing to prevent a return to work almost immediately.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind, in exercising these special powers, the particular difficulties due to the sea passage of Ulster? Is he aware that if the strike continues for any length of time there will be a very rapid increase in unemployment there?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is well understood and taken into account. The same is true, of course, of many other areas which are dependent on sea transport, including many islands. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, I believe that some understanding has been shown by the Seamen's Union of the difficulties of some of the islands in obtaining essential supplies.
The real problem for Ulster and for Britain as a whole is not merely transport between ourselves and other parts of this country, but the arrival of raw materials and foodstuffs from abroad and the shipping of exports which are being produced in this country.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that food prices are already going up, and have done so during the past weekend, on the excuse of the increased cost of alternative means of transport? Would not my right hon. Friend therefore consider freezing food prices at a very early date?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that there are always some people within our community who are prepared to exploit any situation that develops. Indeed, before the strike began there were some traders who put up prices when there had been no difficulties or disruption of supplies and no increase in costs. But, as a result of what I believe was largely spontaneous public reaction to this kind of behaviour and of meetings which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had with some of the food trades, I believe that a much greater sense of responsibility has been shown.
Certainly, the latest facts and figures which I have seen suggest that whatever flurry there was in food prices a week ago when it was not justified the situation has been held for the last few days. Of course, if this no longer holds, and there is a shortage of food and these problems arise, we shall be prepared to use the powers taken in the Regulations which have been tabled today.

Mr. Peyton: The Prime Minister has treated this matter as if it were simply a dispute between the shipowners and the seamen. Will he say now whether or not he adheres to what he previously said about the incomes and wages policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I made it very plain in my broadcast last Monday. There is a very serious problem here, as there would be in the case of any other union. If wages were to rise by an undue amount, particularly after an increase last year, it would produce such a fatal breach in the prices and incomes policy that we would not be able to counter inflation at home, to maintain our exports, or indeed to maintain full employment. I said that last week and it must be clearly emphasised.
The natural sympathy of, I believe, hon. members on both sides of the House for the seamen, and the way in which their grievances have not been dealt with in past years, cannot derogate from this fact. This is one reason why, in this case, as in so many others, it is becoming increasingly important to link increases in pay with increases in productivity and with the number of men employed on a particular job.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if troops are put in the docks, or there is an extension of the use of the Royal Navy, this can lead to a very serious crisis for the rest of the dock workers? Will he not consider that under the emergency powers which are to be brought in it would be far better if the Government took over on a temporary basis the running of the shipping industry with a temporary subsidy until the whole matter could be settled?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, I recall, is a fellow Merseyside Member of Parliament who played a notable part in the shipping dispute six years ago when the Merchant Shipping Act was one


of the serious questions. Some of these things are not spontaneous, but deliberately organised by people of political views not represented in this House. If there were an attempt to spread this difficulty and trouble to other areas of the economy, I know that he would be one of the first to use his very notable influence to prevent this happening. [Laughter.] This is not a matter for tittering by hon. Members opposite.
I happen to know what my hon. Friend did in the very difficult situation of the 1960 dispute. I am absolutely confident— I say it again—that he and everyone else who has influence in shipping and port areas will do their utmost to see that no one is allowed to cash in in a political sense on the difficulties which have arisen.
When my hon. Friend suggests that this matter should be bridged by a temporary subsidy, I ask him to consider that this is not the right way to settle this problem. There are grave difficulties here, as we all recognise. Our industrial history has been marked, and indeed fouled, by attempts to deal with problems of this kind by a subsidy. I do not believe that it would be appropriate in this situation. A lot of patience will be needed on both sides and a lot of imagination on one side of the industry which has not been notable for imagination in the past.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating that the less said at this stage the better, may I ask the Prime Minister, nevertheless, whether he is aware that certain sections of the public are deeply concerned about the whole situation? Will he undertake, either through himself or through other Ministers, to keep the Mouse and the country fully informed on vital matters which affect the public as a whole?

The Prime Minister: I believe that not just certain sections of the public, but all sections, are deeply concerned about this situation and about what has led up to it, a bout the present problem and about what it may mean for this country, as well as for the industry concerned.
My right hon. Friends and I will keep the House informed at every point of the situation, but I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that we

were right to make a Proclamation today so as to give the House a chance adequately to debate it and the Regulations before we rise at the end of the week.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to create the right atmosphere for a settlement he should avoid the Government's using naval vessels indiscriminately, especially when the National Union of Seamen has promised to provide essential supplies to the Western Isles and the Orkneys and, this week, is doing so?

The Prime Minister: There will not be indiscriminate use of anything. This is a highly delicate situation and we shall be extremely careful about how it is handled.
While I have joined the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in paying tribute to the Seamen's Union for the way in which it is moving the relatively small amount of supplies needed to go from the mainland to areas such as those which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) mentioned, the basic problem with which we are presented is not that of sending a couple of shiploads of supplies to the Western Isles or to the Shetlands. The main problem is the fact that far larger quantities of essential goods will not be coming to these islands at all. It is a problem of imports into, and exports out of, Britain much more than a problem of distribution within Britain.
We shall have to take whatever action is needed, whatever it may be, to minimise the damage to Britain of this dispute. We did not seek this dispute. I believe that the National Union of Seamen understood fully what the economic effects would be—I have made it very clear to the union. In its mind it did not regard the dispute as an attack on the Government, an attack on the State, an attack on the community. Nevertheless, these are the inevitable consequences of a dispute of this kind in such an industry, and that being so, the Government have their responsibility and will have to take that responsibility, and will not hesitate to do so.

Several Hon.Members: Several Hon.Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a grave matter, but we must move on, in the interests of the business of the House.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to make a personal statement.
In the debate on Thursday last, on the Motion on Housing and Building Policies, as reported at column 1632 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I said:
I say this with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister. The name of the Ministry it itself a misnomer. It has graduated from the First Commissioner of Works, the Estates of Land and Forests and many antediluvian titles. It now has a name which seems to be a hangover from historic buildings and glorified conveniences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1632.]
I was using the last word in the context of what the Ministry of Public Building and Works does, its care of a great variety of things, including royal residences and parks, embassies, consulates, botanical gardens, grace-and-favour residences and the like, in the way that the Oxford English Dictionary uses it, for it defines "conveniences" as:
Material arrangements or appliances advantageous to life, personal comfort, ease of work, saving of trouble, etc.
There appeared on the tapes in this House on that same night the words "public lavatory" in a substitution for the word "conveniences" and this rather vulgar connotation was taken up throughout the Press on Friday, causing some embarrassment to my family and friends. The Editor of HANSARD has confirmed that what I said was in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Seriously, I make this statement because I shall always be proud of having presided over a great Department of State and am conscious of the kindness to me and the loyalty of those within that Department. I would wish to say nothing to detract from the respect that I have for them and the respect that I would have hoped to have earned from them.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: The House will remember that a question of privilege was raised on Friday morning by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
I will not repeat now the circumstances to which he drew my attention, as hon. Members will have seen these in HANSARD. I have, however, inquired into these circumstances so far as I have been able to do so. As I indicated to the House on Friday, however, I could not make full inquiries without endangering the rule of the House that there must be no intervention in the affairs of a Select Committee unless that Committee itself asks the House in a formal report to do so. This rule binds Mr. Speaker as well as all other Members.
The House will appreciate that my function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege is limited to deciding the formal question, whether the case conforms to the conditions which alone entitle it to take precedence over Orders of the Day. My duty does not extend to deciding the question of substance whether a breach of privilege has, in fact, been committed. That is a question which can be decided only by the House itself. I have, however, considered the facts put forward by the hon. Member with great care. My conclusion must be that the matter is not so clearly a contempt of the House as to justify me in finding that it constitutes prima facie a breach of privilege.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. Without asking you in any way to disclose any evidence or any inquiries which you may have received or sought, Mr. Speaker, if I heard your Ruling aright, you said that you would be unable to rule on this matter unless and until the Committee had disclosed the relevant information and thereby made it public. May I respectfully ask you whether, in coming to that decision—which, of course, we all accept—you had been fully furnished with all the requisite information by that Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the simple answer to the hon. Member is that he has not understood the Ruling which I made. I did not rule that I could not


decide whether this was a question of privilege until I had information from the Committee. I ruled that on the information which I have it is in my opinion not prima facie a case of privilege. Whether it is a breach of privilege or not is always a matter for the House. All that Mr. Speaker has to rule is, on the information which is supplied to him, whether it is prima facie a case which would involve lifting it over the ordinary business of the House and giving it immediate precedence.

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. If I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) aright, or read the record aright, he did not feel able publicly to make full disclosure of the facts because the facts of that Committee had not been publicly disclosed by that Committee. If I am right in that, he was not therefore in a position to furnish you with all the relevant information as he would have wished to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot now discuss the issue which the hon. Member seeks to raise. If he reads the question of privilege as raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West he will see that it has nothing to do with what has happened in the Committee. That is a

matter that we cannot discuss until the Committee has reported to the House.

Mr. English: When you made your Ruling, Sir, which, of course, I entirely accept, was it drawn to your attention that the facts which we may not disclose, under your statement of Friday, were published on every notice board in the House, including public places? Was the fact also drawn to your attention that on B.B.C. television on Friday the statement was made in public that the commentator could give the whole of the facts were it not a breach of privilege?
Could you, Sir, for general elucidation, inform us whether the effect of your Ruling would now be to enable people to publish the facts without putting themselves in contempt of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not seek now, having had a Ruling on a question of privilege, to bring other hypothetical cases before me. The simple answer to him is that if he turns up the precedents he will find that it is and has always been a breach of privilege to publish events that took place in or the transactions of a Select Committee before they have been brought before the House. This is just the classic example.

Orders of the Day — DOCKS AND HARBOURS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House, I am sure, will appreciate the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour cannot be here today.
The Bill falls into three parts. Part I deals with the licensing of port employers and with compensation for those who are refused licences. Part II deals with the provision of welfare amenities in ports, and Part III consists of a number of miscellaneous provisions relating to powers of harbour authorities and other matters connected with the efficient running of the ports.
I should like to deal, first, with the licensing of port employers. The broad effect of Part I of the Bill is that from an appointed day only employers who have been granted a licence, or, subject to certain conditions, port authorities designated as licensing authorities will be able to employ registered dock workers. The object of this is to ensure a major reduction in the present number of port employers.
As the House may recall, this goes back to the Report by Lord Devlin's Committee of Inquiry last year. That Report was generally recognised as a major landmark in the troubled history of labour relations in the docks. Its basic recommendation was that the time had come to put an end to the present casual system of employing dock workers. Of course, the dock labour scheme as we now have it was a considerable advance on the completely casual conditions which existed before the war.
The present scheme does not go far enough. The majority of dock workers are still engaged on a daily basis. They may be working for a different employer every day of the week and their earnings are likely to fluctuate substantially from week to week. As the Devlin Report showed, it is impossible in these conditions to build up stable labour relations or to secure progressive and efficient

management. It is to the credit of both sides of the industry that they immediately accepted the main recommendations of the Devlin Report.
The National Modernisation Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Brown, was set up to work out detailed plans for the ending of the casual system and for the introduction of a system of permanent employment The Committee has actively concerned itself with all aspects of this problem It has been particularly engaged in negotiating the terms and conditions of alterations to working practices which would need to accompany such a radical change Substantial progress has been made with this difficult task.
My right hon. Friend recently published proposals which were drafted in consultation with the Modernisation Committee, representing both sides of the industry, to adapt the dock labour scheme to conditions of permanent employment. There have been a number of objections to these proposals, which is not surprising in an exercise of this complexity, and they will shortly be the subject of a public inquiry. But there is—and I would stress this—basic agreement between the employers and the unions on the main issues involved.
Negotiations on revised terms and conditions and on changes in working practices have been pushed forward energetically, and much progress has been made. It has not, however, proved possible to reach agreement on all issues, and my right hon. Friend and I are very delighted that Lord Devlin has again agreed to head an independent committee to recommend how the outstanding differences should be resolved. That committee is already at work.
The licensing provisions of the Bill before the House are an integral part of this whole operation to introduce a new system of employment. If dock workers are to be employed regularly by the same employer, a drastic reduction in the present number of employers is essential. There were at the time of the Devlin Report no fewer that 1,400 registered employers in the docks. Many of these employers have only a tenuous connection with the industry and they only employ dock workers from time to time. We need to get down to a much


smaller number of substantial employers all of whom will be able to provide the quality of management needed in a modernised and efficient port service. The National Association of Port Employers is fully aware of the need for this, and I understand that a number of amalgamations of existing employers have already taken place.
To give one example, in the enclosed docks in London the number is being reduced from 35 to nine employers and this is approximately the sort of figure that the Devlin Committee found to be about right. However, we cannot afford to leave this entirely to voluntary action. We need a statutory licensing system as recommended by the Devlin Report to ensure that the reduction in numbers is carried far enough and to control the situation in the future.
Before I turn to the provisions of the Bill in more detail, I should like to say a word about the various moves to which I have referred in the introduction of full decasualisation and their relation to the Government's plans for the industry in the longer term. In our General Election manifesto we announced our intention to reorganise and modernise the ports on the basis of a strong national ports authority and publicly-owned regional port authorities, with each port authority ultimately its for all port operations in its area, including stevedoring and the extension of the joint participation which is already a feature of the docks industry. That is a pledge which we have every intention of carrying out.
But a major reconstruction of this kind will need careful preparation and will inevitably take some time to bring into effect. We cannot afford to allow the casual system to continue as it is at present until such time as we have completed all the work necessary to enable us to introduce wider reforms. I believe that we are now in a position to introduce a system of employment which will give the average dock worker a much fairer deal. We should not delay any longer in doing so. Nor can the country afford to put off changes which will have a direct bearing on the efficiency of our ports and on our performance in the export field. I am sure, for these reasons, that it is right to go ahead with the present legislation and the other action related to decasualisation of the docks.
I should now like to come to the licensing provisions of the Bill in rather more detail. These provisions apply to the ports listed in Schedule 1 which are the ports at present covered by the dock labour scheme. These are the ports where we intend to introduce full decasualisation and the need for licensing consequently arises. The licensing authorities for the various ports are set out in the First Schedule. They are in most cases the port authorities for the ports concerned, but in some cases we propose that a major port authority should act as the licensing authority not only for its own port but also for small neighbouring ports The choice of port authorities as licensing authorities is a matter that we have considered very carefully and discussed at length with both sides of the industry.
It can be argued, as it was in the Devlin Report, that since many port authorities are themselves employers of dock labour, it is wrong for them to act as licensing bodies because they would be licensing their own competitors. On the other hand, the port authority carries full responsibility for the efficiency and financial viability of its port. Licensing decisions which will determine the number and nature of employers in the port are, obviously, fundamental to the efficient operation of the port.
In our view, therefore, it would be wrong if in the major ports this basic function were to be exercised by some other body which did not have the direct responsibility for the port which the port authority itself has. We think that this must be the overriding consideration, and this has been accepted by the port employers, subject to there being rights of appeal from port authority decisions.
Clause 4 lays down certain criteria to which licensing authorities must have regard in coming to decisions on applications for licences. These follow closely the recommendations of the Devlin Report. They relate to the applicant's ability to provide efficient management and regular employment for a reasonable quota of the labour force in that port and to the need to keep the total number of employers within the limit which is compatible with the efficient running of the port, bearing particularly in mind the need for the efficient operation of specialist services.
The House may have noted that the criteria in Clause 4 make no reference to the willingness and ability of the employer to provide welfare amenities. The Devlin Report envisaged this as one of the considerations which should be taken into account. However, Part II of the Bill will ensure that employers who have received licences will have to provide amenities where this responsibility properly falls to them rather than to the port authorities. Because of this, it is not necessary to refer to amenities in the criteria set out in Clause 4. There is no point in assessing an employer's willingness to provide amenities which he will be required to provide anyhow if he is granted a licence.
Clause 5 provides that conditions may be attached to licences. These may relate to the number of workers to be employed at the introduction of licensing, the particular parts of the port in which the employer may operate and the kind of operations in which he may engage. The last type of condition, restricting the kind of operations an employer may undertake, might be necessary in the case of various specialist employers such as employers, for example, of tally clerks who are granted a licence to operate in their specialist field.
Licensing authorities will have power to issue licences for fixed terms of between three and seven years, but they will not have power to revoke them during their term unless there has been a failure to comply with a condition of licence or unless the licence has been granted on the basis of false information.
Clauses 7 to 9 deal with the right of appeal. The system will work as follows. All applications at the initial stage must be made before a prescribed date. The licensing authority, when it has reached decisions on all those applications, will notify all its decisions for the port to all the applicants in that port. If the licensing authority itself proposes to employ dock workers in the port or to continue to employ them, it must state its own proposal in the notice sent to all the applicants. All applicants will have a right of appeal to the Minister of Transport against the decisions or proposals of the licensing authority.
The notices of decisions and proposals sent to applicants for licences in the port

must be sent also to the National Ports Council, and the Council will have the right to lodge objections with the Minister or to make representations to the Minister about any appeals by employers against the licensing authority's decisions or proposals. The Council will thus have an important voice in deciding the future pattern of employment and will be able to make its views felt if it thinks that decisions proposed for a particular port are inconsistent with overall considerations of port efficiency. Before determining appeals or objections, the Minister of Transport may direct an inquiry to be held into them under Clause 48.
At the initial stage of licensing, the existing labour force in the port will be divided between those employers granted licences and the licensing authority itself where that licensing authority is an employer of dock labour. This means that the port will be looked at as a whole and, if one appeal or objection to the licensing authority's decision is made, then all the decisions and proposals for that port must be reconsidered at the inquiry.
Hon. Members will have noted that, under Clause 8, appeals are to be decided by the Minister of Transport after consultation with the Minister of Labour. We think that this is right. The overriding consideration must be the general efficiency of the port, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but the interests of my own. Department are, of course, closely involved.
Clauses 10 to 13 deal with compensation for employers who are refused a licence. Clearly, it is right that, if an employer is put out of business by refusal of a licence, he should be entitled to compensation. Compensation claims will be met by the licensing authorities, but they will be able to recover the cost from the surviving employers in the port. The surviving employers will normally benefit from the traffic previously handled by those employers who are put out of business, and it is reasonable that they should bear the cost of compensation.
Where the port authority itself is an employer, it will bear its due share of the cost. The licensing authority will be able to recover the cost from other employers by means of a levy related to the number of workers employed by each employer on the introduction of licensing, and the levy may be spread over a period


up to five years, to be settled by the licensing authority in consultation with those who are contributing.
Licensing will be introduced on a day to be appointed by the Minister of Transport, and different days may be appointed for different ports to suit particular circumstances and administrative needs. The process of sifting initial applications and dealing with appeals will necessarily take some months. It is our aim—and both sides of the industry are with us on this—to introduce full decasualisation under a revised Dock Labour Scheme as soon as practicable.

Sir Tatton Brinton: The hon. Lady skipped over Clause 10. Does she intend to return to it? There is a rather interesting point there which I should like clarified.

Mrs. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to conclude this part of my speech. I am dealing at present with Clauses 10 to 13, and it may be that, by the time I reach the end pf this section, I shall have answered his point.
It should be possible to introduce full decasualisation under the Dock Labour Scheme in advance of licensing becoming effective, but it will be important to ensure that the licensing operation is carried through with a minimum of delay following the introduction of the revised abour scheme. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to make his point now, when I shall be happy to deal with it.

Sir T. Brinton: Clause 10(2) provides that, on an application for renewal of a licence, all the normal initial conditions will apply save the one specifying the number of workers to be employed. Does this mean that, while an employer granted a licence for, say, five years and undertaking to employ, say, 100 men must employ those men for five years, at the end of that time, on renewal of his licence, he will have carte blanche to get rid of as many as he wishes? Is that the intention?

Mrs. Williams: No, it is not the intention. The intention is that, in the initial stage, the Bill will lay down a procedure under which the National Dock Labour Board will allocate employees to an employer on the basis of his proposition

when he is licensed. If, at a later stage, he wishes to increase or decrease the number of employees in his employment, it will then be for him to go to the Dock Labour Board, which will have a watching brief in the matter, to open discussions with it on that point. So there will be room for alteration in the scale of operations of any one port employer.

Sir T. Brinton: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I do not then quite understand the need or reason for subsection (2) of Clause 10.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This looks rather like a Committee point.

Sir T. Brinton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Williams: I think that it is, perhaps, a Committee point, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the subsection, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, stems from the effort to rationalise the docks in the first instance. He will recognise that it would be impossible to impose a frozen pattern upon an industry which is moving as rapidly as this is.
I turn to the second part of the Bill, which deals with the welfare amenities for dock workers. It is a field in which, I think the House will agree, there has been lamentable delay and neglect over the years. We are determined to see that rapid progress is made. The House will be glad to know that action is already in hand. Following the Devlin Report, the Dock Labour Board, in consultation with my right hon. Friend's Department, and with the help of consultants, carried out a comprehensive survey of the amenities needed in each port. These surveys will form the basis for a major programme of amenities.
The purpose of Part II is to provide machinery for ensuring that this happens. But I hope very much that the industry will not wait for the enforcement machinery to come into action before going ahead with the provision of what is required. There is much good will on this subject on the part of the port employers and authorities, and we are confident that the work of implementing the surveys will be put in hand wherever possible without delay. Action has already started in some ports.
Clause 5 requires the Dock Labour Board to submit for my right hon. Friend's approval a welfare amenity scheme for each port. It will set out precisely what needs to be done and by whom it should be done. The bulk of the work will fall on the port authorities, which, in most cases, own the land on which the amenities are to be sited, but, where a private employer owns or leases the wharf or quay in question, the responsibility will fall to him.
When the Dock Labour Board has submitted to my right hon. Friend a draft scheme for a particular port, the draft will be made available to those concerned, who will have the right to lodge objections to it. After holding any inquiry which may be necessary, my right hon. Friend will have the power to amend the draft scheme in the light of the objections before he approves the scheme.
Clause 28 empowers port authorities to meet the cost of amenities either by direct charges on employers or workers who use them or from general dues. This will have to be arranged in the light of the particular circumstances in each port.
Clause 30 provides penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of a welfare scheme. It is intended that the Factory Inspectorate will be responsible for enforcement. But the Bill contains, in Clause 29, a further enforcement provision which would enable my right hon. Friend, in the event of serious or persistent default on the part of an employer or a port authority, to authorise the Dock Labour Board to provide the amenities itself and recover the cost from the defaulter. I think that my hon. Friends will appreciate that this will mean that welfare amenities are definitely brought in.
I suggest to the House that this part of the Bill provides machinery which will be well adapted to the needs in the docks in the immediate future. It will initially be largely a question of providing amenities which at present do not exist, and providing them quickly. For this purpose, the system of schemes for each port which is provided for in the Bill will, I believe, be more effective than the more orthodox approach of making welfare regulations under the Factories Acts. It may well be that at a later stage

it would be appropriate to move over to a system of regulations, and machinery for doing this is provided in Clause 25(6).
The Bill includes, in Part III, a number of proposals of particular concern to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. These proposals are designed to increase efficiency in the ports. Harbour authorities will be given wide general powers to run inland clearance depots. They will be empowered to acquire, by agreement, stevedoring businesses and other such businesses operating in harbours, or to acquire an interest in them, and will have general powers to carry out harbour operations. In these ways, the harbour authorities will be able to participate in new and more efficient cargo-handling arrangements, and play their part in the voluntary mergers of port employers now going on and, we hope, help to ease the introduction of employer licensing arrangements; and they will also have power to carry out a whole range of harbour activities in their own harbours.
There are also provisions which will greatly facilitate the carrying out of measures of port reorganisation in the main estuaries of the country. Clause 42 provides a limitation on the right to challenge any provisions in harbour orders and schemes, corresponding to the existing limitation of the right to challenge compulsory purchase provisions. Clauses 39 to 45 will, we hope, be of great assistance to the National Ports Council and port authorities in their work of preparing reorganisation schemes and port development plans.
The level of efficiency in our ports still leaves a great deal to be desired. This is especially true of the efficient use of labour. There has been evidence of a new spirit in the industry since the time of the Devlin Report, and my right hon. Friend and I believe that we could be on the edge of a breakthrough in industrial relations, working conditions and efficiency in the docks.
In conjunction with the other measures that I referred to earlier, the Bill, we believe, can make an important contribution to this end, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Sir Keith Joseph: Before the hon. Lady sits down, would she be able to tell the House, in view


of her astonishing statement at the beginning of her speech, what sort of time scale the Government have in mind for legislating the pledge to which she has committed the Government, in the Labour Party manifesto, which seems completely to nullify the Bill whose Second Reading she is moving?

Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal made in the Labour Party's manifesto, that there should ultimately be nationalisation of the ports, is one which will take a great deal of preparation, as I pointed out in my speech. My right hon. Friend and I see no reason for not going ahead with the immediate proposal for rationalising the docks. We do not believe this to be in any way incompatible with a later reorganisation of the docks on the lines laid down in the Labour Party's manifesto.

4.26 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Lady, whose courteous substitution for her right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour we understand and appreciate, has quite dumbfounded me by her recommendation to the House at one and the same time of a Bill and the complete contradiction of the Bill. In answer to my intervention, she said that her right hon. Friend sees no reason why the intention of the Government to nationalise the docks industry should interfere in any way with the purpose of the Bill. I am staggered that the hon. Lady should permit herself such incomprehension.
The Bill requires the industry to recruit first-class managers, to go in for first-class training and, in conjunction with the harbour authorities, to go in for major investment. They are all suddenly to be told, in a Second Reading speech, in a casual intervention—indeed, in a casual insertion by the hon. Lady; and I believe that it was a late insertion in the speech which her right hon. Friend would have made—that there is no foreseeable number of years for which they can promise a career structure to new managers or an amortisation period for new investment.
I wish now to develop the arguments of the Opposition on the Bill as a whole, but I shall come back to the main point that emerges from the Bill itself, and particularly from the way in which the hon. Lady has chosen to present it this afternoon.
During my speech I shall have some comments to make upon the views of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I should like the House to know that I have warned him of this, and that he has very courteously sent me a card saying that he cannot be present.
I was somewhat surprised, particularly as one of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Education was sitting on the Government Front Bench, that the hon. Lady chose to introduce the Bill on such a narrow front. The Bill, and its purpose, fits into a major strategy, and I had hoped that we should hear from her some of the Government's views on the strategy. After all, the Government must know that there are stirrings across the whole transport front, and this may well be a time for us as a country to leapfrog our competitors in cutting our transport costs by higher efficiency. The docks, by common consent, are in urgent need of transformation from a casual inefficient, high cost and sometimes low earning industry to a well managed, efficient, low cost, high earning industry.
But parallel to this need for transformation there are changes on the way in harbours investment. The National Ports Council's Interim Plan proposes a very big investment programme and the Government have already authorised certain components of that investment plan to be put into effect. The Government must realise that the effect of the Bill in improving labour output or getting better management and better labour relations may be reflected considerably in the scale and location of the investment to be made in our harbours.
The two to some extent go together. The investment must reflect the output of labour. But, while all these changes are in preparation, a new and possibly dramatically changed pattern of transport is emerging for general cargo. This country has nothing to be ashamed a' in its handling of bulk cargo, such as iron ore or grain or oil. There we are level in productivity with the best in the world. What we are anxious to improve is the handling of general cargo.
I understand that the arrival of the container industry may make an enormous difference to potential productivity in the handling of general cargo. All


these trends—in terms of management-labour relations, productivity, investment in harbours and new methods of vertically related transport handling associated with the container industry—need to be gathered and collated by the Government and an investment, management and manpower strategy evolved.
I agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Poplar on 28th April, 1966, and reported in column 1069 of HANSARD of that day. He suggested that we should apply operational research to the combination of these different implications of change in the transport and dock industries. It could, indeed, make an enormous difference in cutting our costs and raising earnings if the full potential of these trends were realised.
But that full potential depends upon good management and good labour relations, and here we come back to the Bill. The Bill fulfils part of Devlin, but I think that the hon. Lady will agree that it is the easiest part of Devlin. The awkward bits of the Devlin Report have been hived off. We make no complaint about that, for they needed further examination. The issue of wages and earnings is being considered by Lord Devlin himself and amendments to the Dock Labour Board Scheme are being considered by Sir George Honeyman and his Committee. We hope that they will be able to report constructively and soon.
We have to see the Bill against the background of a wider transport transformation potential and against its human background. I noted with some shock—and perhaps other hon. Members are as ignorant of this aspect as I was—the cost in terms of human suffering that the docks industry still imposes. The latest report by the D.L.B. reveals that the number of accidents is very high. It still appears to be a dangerous industry. We hope that improved management-labour relations will reduce the propensity to accidents.
It is a dangerous industry and we know from history that there is a great deal of bitterness still in it. As a young man, before entering politics, I was excited by the decasualisation proposals of Ernest Bevin and in preparation for this debate I read again Alan Bullock's "The Life and Times of Ernest Bevin".
particularly the dramatic chapters from the history of dockland. Decasualisation appeared to be a great step forward. But, as far as we can see, it has bred its own ills, with the result that the post-war trouble in the docks, following decasualisation, has been, extraordinarily enough, even more than the trouble in the docks before the war. This fact was mentioned by the Devlin Committee.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there was less dispute in the docks before the war because of the high level of unemployment? Hundreds of dockers were knocking on the gates for one job. With decasualisation and post-war full employment, the reverse has been the case. The situation is not that bitterness has increased, but that conditions have altered.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Gentleman is largely right, but he will agree that Ernest Bevin would still have been very saddened by the results or effects, whatever they may have been caused by.
The Devlin Report stated that casual labour produced a casual attitude in both management and men. I shall not deny that the past reflects little credit on either side in the industry, but our job today is to consider the future in the light of the past and it seems to the Opposition that the Devlin Committee points the way to objectives which are clear and admirable and to methods which seem to us practicable and sensible.
The Devlin Committee's objectives seem to us to be to release to the public, the dockers and the employers, the benefits that could flow to all of them from good management and good industrial relations. What Devlin seeks to do is to give the employers a chance to manage and the dockers the benefits of good management, regular employment and less fluctuating earnings. But it is essential, in the Devlin Committee's view—which the Government have accepted—to eliminate the duality between holding employers and operational employers while still keeping the D.L.B. to see fair play.
One is almost brought to a halt by the Government's blandness on the issue. They accept all this, including dependence upon the employers to turn over a new


leaf, to seek new managers and offer them the necessary stable career structure and to embark upon major investment. Yet the Government expect it all to be done against the thoroughly uncertain background that the hon. Lady has created by her remark this afternoon. The employers have shown willing—I am not saying that the unions have not—but their confidence will be shaken by her speech.
As the hon. Lady herself has said, the employers have shown willing. Indeed, 35 employers in the enclosed docks in London have, through their own arrangements, reduced themselves to nine. That is the sort of thing Devlin recommended and that the Government hope for. Now this bombshell has fallen and uncertainty will prevail. We did not and still do not question the Minister's integrity, but we question his strength of mind. The hon. Lady could not see the episode, but it was revealing to note what happened when she spoke that crucial sentence.
After moving the Second Reading, the hon. Lady went on to quote the ambiguous "pledge" in the Labour Party manifesto and committed the Government to carrying it out. I agree that she said that this would take some time and that she did not know when it would happen. But what will this do to the confidence of those who are to recruit or offer themselves as managers?
One can imagine the sort of advertisement that would be appropriate, "Required—first-class managers of fine character and expert knowledge for a career, period unknown, under an employer, character unknown." The hon. Lady has, in effect, doomed the Bill by that one sentence and I hope that her right hon. Friend will come to the House and make a firm statement about the period of years for which the structure provided by the Bill will last before it is judged again.
The hon. Lady should have noted the little performance that went on behind her as she told the House that key sentence. The hon. Member for Poplar was sitting behind her and, as she quoted that ambiguous sentence—no, that committing sentence—he beamed all over his face and beamed at his hon. Friends, as he is entitled to beam because he has won a

great verbal triumph. He then walked out of the Chamber as though there was nothing more in today's proceedings for him.
I have had a courteous note from the hon. Member for Poplar to say that he cannot be present for the rest of the day. If the hon. Lady had seen his smile of triumph and his exit from the Chamber, she would have realised, if she had not already done so, and I am sure that she had, what a significant thing she, or her right hon. Friend, under pressure, had inserted into the speech.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I find it very difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman is quite so amazed. He will know that there was a passage in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election stating that it was our intention ultimately to take the dock industry into public ownership. He seems to expect us to abandon pledges made in our manifesto in the course of six weeks.

Sir K. Joseph: That would not be surprising. If I were to go on past performance, that could be expected on every subject. The hon. Lady knows how many precedents there are.
But in this case there is a great difference. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has led us to believe that he wants to legislate Devlin. Devlin depends on confidence among employers and unions alike, and the confidence of employers is to reflect itself in recruiting, good management, training and investment. But all this must be shattered by the uncertainty brought into their prospects by what the hon. Lady has now committed the Government to.
We were very concerned about the apparent conflict between her Minister advocating legislating Devlin, on the one hand, and the National Labour Party Executive, on the other. There were Press reports about the National Labour Party Executive meeting on 27th April, with the Prime Minister present, saying that a commitment to nationalise the docks was entered into and approved.
It was the very next day that the hon. Member for Poplar, who was chairman of the committee whose proposal had allegedly been accepted by the Labour Party Executive, spoke in the House at the end of the debate on the Address.
That speech had much truth in it, but it also had some misunderstanding and some exaggeration. As the course now seems to be set by the Government towards nationalisation in some way, I must ask the House to hear some of the reasons against the policy to which the hon. Lady has committed her Government this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Poplar equated the docks with the coal industry in the 'thirties. He said that bitterness in the docks was such as to make any reconciliation between the dockers and the employers impossible, as, so he said. had been the case in the coal industry.
I think that he is fundamentally wrong. I think that the structure of the coal mines was not as antagonistic to good management as the structure of dock employment has been. Nearly all of the ills of the docks, as Devlin says, can be traced to the casual structure of the industry. They are bad by-products of a good intention. In fact, we have a situation in which about one-third of the dockers are employed permanently by dock employers and, as far as I know, showing no great reluctance to continue in that permanent employment.
A large part of the trouble arising in the docks occurs because those who are followers or casuals resent the apparent good luck of those who have permanent employment with employers, some of whom are very good. I am not defending all employers, but many of them are perfectly good and are doing their best in difficult circumstances. I disagree with the basis of the view of the hon. Member for Poplar who related the dock industry to the coal industry of the 1930s.
But even supposing that we accept his view, what is he proposing instead and what is the hon. Lady proposing? Is this a straightforward nationalisation? Is it a nationalisation of labour only? Is it a nationalisation of harbours only with labour being held by a national dock labour board? Are employers to be eliminated altogether? We are left in considerable ambiguity and the people who will have to carry out the essence of the Bill will also be left in great uncertainty.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), who is

to wind up the debate for the Government, will give more clarity to the picture. Are employers to recruit managers? Are they to set investment programmes in hand? We want to know what sort of time they have, because there is a sinister ingredient in this position which I must bring to the attention of the House.
Nationalisation is something which we on this side of the House oppose wholeheartedly, because we believe that it is impersonal and inefficient. We believe that large employers of a governmental nature, such as a nationalised body must be, are very unlikely to resist increases in earnings unrelated to increases in productivity. We believe that such nationalised bodies will be "soft" on Luddism. We believe that they will be "soft" on efficiency and that on the whole they will be bad employers and that the result of nationalisation is against the public interest. We say this not ideologically, but out of practical experience.
If what the Government are now doing under cover of one sentence in a Second Reading speech is to embark on yet another excursion into nationalisation, the country needs to be told so clearly and the reasons for it and how they are to do it. If, on the other hand, the hon. Lady has produced a sentence intended merely to quieten her hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and his hon. Friends on the back benches, for some of whom I have a personal regard although no political time at all, I think that she is sabotaging her own Bill. We very much deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is not himself to wind up the debate, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up will address himself to this problem.
Devlin himself spells out in no uncertain words the damage which nationalisation would do. He says that he regards the personal relationship between good employers and permanent labour forces as imperative to getting good production from the docks. Now the Government are throwing all this overboard, after having nominally accepted the Devlin Report, in favour of some cloudy alternative of which they give us no details.
The really sinister element is that in the docks—and the House is aware of this and the Prime Minister himself referred


to it, in passing—there are people whom Devlin described as wreckers, probably not many of them. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any alliance between the hon. Member for Poplar and those who agree with him and these few wreckers. But as Devlin says, the wreckers regard any improvement in industrial relations as bad for wrecking and, therefore, they have sworn undying emnity to decasualisation. That is why they are against Devlin, because, as the Report shows, implementation of the Devlin proposals will damage their purposes, which are not purposes which anyone in the House would support.
It is quite possible that when the Bill is through the House, if the Government still continue with it after what they have said, some of these wreckers will try to upset the dockers. If that happens, will the Government, on the urging of the hon. Member for Poplar, produce that as evidence that Devlin will not work? Will we be told that because there is an upset caused by the wreckers, Devlin was a stage which had to be tried, but which had been seen as quickly as that to fail, and that the Government are, therefore, entitled to go on to the next stage, whatever that might be?
I ask the hon. Lady to realise that there are forces which may be at work which, although their motives are entirely different, may play into the hands of those hon. Members behind her who want to make the Bill nugatory and who want to pass straight over the Bill into some undisclosed form of nationalisation.
I am not being fanciful here. All this was predicted by Lord Devlin himself. If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at page 123 of the Report of the Devlin Committee—the very last sentences of the penultimate page—she will find an invitation to her Government and to the Minister:
We therefore invite you to say in general terms that the Government, once it is satisfied that the joint machinery of the industry has produced a plan beneficial to the docks and acceptable to a substantial majority of dock workers, will not stand by and see it wrecked by a minority; it will use its powers under the Act, strengthened if necessary, to impose a new scheme".
I was going to ask the Government to give the pledge that rather than see the Bill wrecked by a minority of ill-wishers, they would impose the scheme which is

embodied in the Bill, but now I have to ask an even more urgent question. I have asked it before and I ask it again. Will the Government make clear the period of time for which they are legislating and what they propose to do after this legislation, if they intend to fulfil the hon. Lady's words this afternoon?

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and important point. Is it not true, when we consider imposing this on the industry, that when the former Labour Government and Mr. Isaacs imposed this at the time, it was against a section of the employers, who were bitterly opposed to the scheme being introduced, and the entire trade union movement in the docks industry demanded that the Government should carry this out? When we are talking in terms of imposition, therefore, it was an imposition against a minority of employers. Can the right hon. Gentleman define whether the Devlin Report is saying that it will be on the employers that this will have to be imposed, or on certain sections of the trade unions? There is some doubt about exactly what is meant.

Sir K. Joseph: The Bill embodies, if necessary, a compulsion on employers by introducing a licensing system, to which we have no objection in principle. The Devlin Report references are to the minority of wreckers, who, it states, have sworn enmity to decasualisation, the very policy that the Government have adopted, because they see it as improving industrial relations and, therefore, damaging to wrecking.
I turn now from the big strategy to few major questions on the Bill. While we support the idea of licensing to reduce the number of employers, and though we hope that this will be done everywhere voluntarily, as in the enclosed docks of London, we are concerned lest the Government inadvertently create what I believe is called oligopoly. We want to be assured that new employers will be able to come in. We do not want a situation where employers, however good their motives and management, now grow slack because there is no competition. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will tell us something about this when he replies.
Secondly, on the licensing system I was going to say to the Government that we


think that their period of licensing, for three to seven years, may not be enough in some cases to encourage the large investment that we think some employers will want to provide. It may be necessary to allow licences for 20, 30 or even more years to justify the major investment that some employers will want to make.
But this is very relevant to the uncertainty that the hon. Lady has thrown into the industry by what she said this afternoon. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the debate, tell us his view about whether some licences should not be for much longer and, if so, how that marries with the commitment of the Government to change the structure of the industry again once the Bill is through?
I now turn to the First Schedule. We shall want to examine carefully in Committee the inclusions in the Schedule. We have particular reason to question the insertion of the port of Par. That, however, is a Committee point. I merely give the Government warning that we shall want to go into some detail on the composition of the Schedule.
Returning to the question of licensing, we note with some concern that as a condition for compensation an employer who is denied a licence and receives compensation will have to be an employer at a certain date, not yet specified, and will, in the previous months leading up to that date, have had to employ a certain minimum number of dockers. We suggest to the Government that this may encourage employers who are willing to leave the industry with compensation to hang on more than is necessary and retain a number of dockers in their employ, simply to be sure of their compensation. Perhaps the hon. Lady will consider, before the Committee stage, whether there is such a danger in the way that the Bill is drafted.
We realise that much of Part III of the Bill, connected with harbours, is to clear up a number of anomalies and defects that have emerged since the Harbours Act was passed, but we have one big query on this. We should like to know whether Clause 35 has been cleared by the Government with the Customs. I understand that the establishment of con-

tainer depots depends a great deal upon the agreement of the Customs authorities, and we see no reference to the Customs in the Clause. We shall want to examine this as an important matter.
The constructive tenor of the speech that I had intended to make this afternoon has, I fear, had to be altered in the light of the major bombshell that the hon. Lady has thrown into this debate. We are staggered that the Government can either submit to the pressures of the hon. Member for Poplar and throw him a verbal bone, on the one hand, or—and this would be just as bad, if not worse—sabotage the confidence on which the execution of their Bill depends by giving the employers notice that they will not be able honourably either to recruit or to invest on a scale that the intentions of the Bill would warrant.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: In rising to make my maiden speech in this House, I should like first to refer to the people of Bistol, North-West and to thank them for sending me here. Secondly, I should like to refer to the former Member, Mr. Martin McLaren, who sat on the benches opposite. He was well known and was, perhaps, better known to the Members of this House than to me personally. I met him on only a few occasions. His political beliefs and philosophy were not mine, but I formed the impression that he honestly and sincerely held those views and I do not think that one can say more of a man that that. I was also going to wish him a successful future, but I hear that he has been readopted as the prospective Conservative candidate in my constituency, and I think that the House will understand in the circumstances that I wish him a long and successfull retirement.
The Bill is very important for my constituency, because in Bristol, North-West we have the Avonmouth Docks. Because of the important developments that are taking place, we are likely to see an era of unprecedented growth in Bristol. The completion of the M4 from London, the M5 from Birmingham and the Severn Bridge, with roadway spurs down to the docks, will make this one of the boom areas of Great Britain. We shall see in the near future—and I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front


Bench that I hope we shall see it very soon—an announcement on the Portbury scheme. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we should take action to bring the entire docks industry up to date.
The first point I want to make on the Bill concerns Clause 2(3,b) which states:
add to that Schedule a port to which a labour scheme for the time being applies, specifying the body which is to be the licensing authority therefor".
There is an important omission from the Bill. Although docks and harbours are covered in Schedule 1, it is limited to ports and harbours which operate the National Dock Labour Scheme. The provision of amenities and decent working conditions for the men is one of the highlights of the Bill, and these facilities, of course, must be paid for. We feel, therefore, that there is danger that even though these are the smaller ports and harbours, there will be a tendency towards unfair competition to the extent that it will not be mandatory for them to provide the amenities that we consider to be very necessary. Having examined the Bill, I do not see why we should not include all ports and harbours in this enactment. I hope that something can be done about this.
Having mentioned the smaller point, I now pass on to the larger point. Although I have been engaged in politics for quite a number of years, I had no actual experience of ports and harbours before standing for the constituency of Bristol, North-West. In looking at the situation, I found that there were many problems. Labour relations were bad, and so tight was the struggle that it was very difficult to move on. Over the years, there has been a tendency to examine and re-examine the industry's problems. We had Leggett in 1955, Devlin in 1956, Forster in 1961, Rochdale in 1961 and, now, Devlin again. Throughout all this, the main problems that emerged were the question of casual labour and the fact that there were so many employers in the docks. I thought, very naively, at first that we should deal with this situation.
I was rather surprised to find that in Bristol the point at which the dockers were selected for work every morning was called the pens, where men stand around and are picked out for the day's employment. I regarded that as a terrible

situation. Nobody, surely, could subscribe to that way of organising a major industry. I was therefore surprised to hear that some dockers supported that kind of hiring of labour. I have come to the conclusion that because feelings in the industry are so bitter, there is a tendency for some of the men, at least, to accept the devil they know rather than agree to change.
Although this is a limited Bill, it makes some advances. There are, however, certain dangers. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour made the statement that she did this afternoon about the future of the industry, because while the Bill represents a move forward and will reduce the number of employers, and will certainly do something about the amenities at the docks, it is no solution of itself. Therefore, when we take the Government's proposals to the workers and the employers in the industry, we must outline what the future of the whole industry is to be, otherwise we shall have trouble in getting the Bill accepted.
In Bristol there are 77 dock employers. This is one reason why it is important to set out the future policy. The number of employers is to be cut down; that is important, and it was recommended by the Devlin Committee. The employers will have to give the men whom they employ more permanent employment. The number of people who are hired casually will fall. The number of men that an employer will employ and the extent to which their employment will be permanent is to be one of the criteria for the issuing of licences to employers.
If it is decided to have, say, five employers in Bristol, the nature of the work which is offered by any one of them might be different from that offered by the other four. One employer might have work for which he can offer different piece rates for the different cargoes which he handles. Another employer might have a substantial need of overtime. If such a situation were to continue for any length of time, the workers in the industry would be able to say that one employer gave a better rate of pay than the others and, in consequence, even though there had been no trouble in the past, there might be a great deal of trouble in the future.
For these reasons, while the Bill will do great work in securing the provision of amenities and we recognise that a reduction in the number of employers is a good thing, it is only one step in the right direction. For that reason, I welcome the statement made this afternoon by my hon. Friend.
I do not wish to abuse my position on this occasion, and I will therefore bring my speech to an end. We have heard from the Opposition Front Bench what are the views of hon. Members opposite. If they do not object too violently, I should like to refresh their memories. In their Election Campaign Guide, they said that the recommendations of the Devlin Report, which in the main were well received by both employers and trade unions, were very much in line with Conservative thinking. In listing some of the proposals of the Devlin Committee, the Conservative Party listed the following as the first of the Committee's principal recommendations:
The National Dock Labour Scheme should be retained, but all men on the register in every port should be employed on a regular weekly engagement, by individual employers"—
and I stress this—
or by a single employer for the port, either the port authority or an amalgamation of existing employers.
In Bristol we have an excellent port authority. I am quite sure that in this industry we can argue the economic necessity for having ultimately one employer to serve one dock area. This, I think, will be the ultimate solution.
I welcome the Bill in so far as it represents a step towards the solution that we want. I think that it will do great work in securing provision of the amenities that are so sadly lacking in our ports. It is a step in the right direction, but it is only one step on the way.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am glad to join hands across the countryside from Harwich to Bristol in congratulating the new Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) on the confidence and clarity with which he made his maiden speech. The hon. Member has succeeded Martin McLaren, a Member who worked hard and quietly not only for his constituency, but in the House of Commons as well.
I believe that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West formerly worked in meteorology. While the outlook for him this afternoon has been fine and sunny, and indeed calm, I can tell him that if, on future occasions he speaks as he did in the latter stage of his maiden speech, the outlook will not be quite as calm and sunny for him. We welcome, however, the manner in which he made his maiden speech.
I am glad to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour upon the first speech that I have heard her make from the Dispatch Box, particularly as she fought me twice in Harwich some time ago.
Generally, I welcome Parts I and II of the Bill because they seem to be very sensible. We shall have to pay particular attention to the powers taken in Part III. They are far more far-reaching than some people have yet realised. These powers are being slipped in, under the cover of welfare amenities and decasualisation of labour.
But any Measure whose objective is aimed at the introduction of regular, permanent employment, which helps towards a reduction of the number of employers, the abolition of restrictive practices; the reform of the wage structure and the provision of proper welfare facilities, must have the support of anyone who knows what a hindrance the delay in carrying out such reforms has been to the proper administration of our ports.
Some of the provisions of the Bill hardly apply to the East Coast ports, for our problems are entirely different to those of the larger ports, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. We do not want to be held up as an example, but some of these smaller ports have succeeded in establishing labour relations far better than many of the bigger ports. A great deal of this success is achieved by good management, which, ahead of the Devlin Committee, has already been carrying out most of its recommendations.
This success has been due to the decentralisation policy of the 1962 Transport Act. Once some of these smaller ports were able to escape from the overcentralised control it was surprising how much progress was made. Whatever changes may be made as a result of this or succeeding Bills, I hope that we shall recognise the essential difference between the


small and large ports. We do not want over-centralised control to interfere with the good management, initiative, drive and competition which have been such a feature and a spur to progress since this policy of decentralisation for the smaller ports was introduced.
It is against this background that I see the control of the employment of dock workers and the amendments to the Harbours Act, 1964, relating to the powers of the National Ports Council and harbour authorities and to harbour reorganisation schemes. We want some help with limited facilities, but not at the expense of interfering with the excellent management which we have in the small ports. I do not want any attempt at over-centralised control in addition to, and over and above that already exercised by the National Ports Council and the Minister of Transport. According to their manifesto, the Labour Party will reorganise and modernise the nation's ports on the basis of a strong national ports authority, and make each port's authority ultimately responsible for that port's operations within the area, including stevedoring.
Yes. further centralisation is threatened in the Bill although it is under the guise of welfare and the control of dock workers and seems to be harmless. Where is the sting? Let me refer to the East Coast ports. It is, perhaps inevitable, that one authority is made of the whole Harwich, Ipswich, Felixstowe area. At the moment, the only port appearing in the First Schedule to the Bill is Ipswich. Is it the Government's intention to impose this Bill on the Stour and Orwell Estuary by the inclusion of Ipswich?
Under Clause 37 of the Bill
A harbour authority may for the purpose of any of its statutory powers or statutory duties acquire by agreement any land where-ever situated.
This Clause seems to be very far-reaching because, if Ipswich was made the chosen instrument, by invoking this Clause the authorities could obtain all the undertakings in the area. The Clause says that the harbour authority
… may … acquire by agreement …
It does not specify who has to be in agreement. Could it be only the Minister who has to agree? The Bill does not say this.
What are the Minister's intentions? These are wide powers without the precise natures being stated. I regard this as very dangerous. The Bill is much wider than it seems. In Schedule 2(2,b) the Minister may, at his will, alter the port schedule as he thinks fit. As far as I can see, he is accountable to no one, for the Schedule says:
… a harbour revision or empowerment order shall not, either before or after it is made, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever …
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is the same as a compulsory purchase order. To my mind, this would be but a step to back-door nationalisation, and it is certainly a move to further centralisation. If we are to have these new controls on employers of dock workers, improved welfare facilities, and the reforms of Devlin, then, on the union side, we must have some reform, too. Has the Minister such an agreement? We cannot afford the interference with the speed of turn-round that roll-on and roll-off traffic can give. We must not allow restrictive practices to interfere with the liner trains and the proper upgrading of a more limited staff which will be needed in the modern container transport system.
We are going through a revolution in the use of our docks and the employment of dockers. It is no longer a matter of muscle and brawn, but of skill and brain-power, in the use of computers and semi-automatic cranes to fill the new container ships which must be constructed to conform to the International Standards Organisation specifications. This is why I welcome the new £8 million two-year programme to develop Parkeston Quay, in my own constituency. This provides a completely integrated, door-to-door service, between the United Kingdom and anywhere on the Continent. Part of this plan must be the formation of inland clearance depôts, having access either by rail or by road. Clause 35 of the Bill gives powers to harbour authorities to establish such depots. I am not so much concerned about what happens by rail as by what happens by road.
With all of this £8 million investment taking place and similar facilities being established on the Continent, what disturbs me is the comparison of our road facilities to the ports with the road


facilities serving the ports of the Continent. Is it really possible to bring in a Bill like this, aimed at improving our port facilities, and to make a £8 million investment in a first-class new scheme at Parkeston and then to do nothing to help over-road communications? The provision of inland clearance depots is an essential part of the scheme. Only a few weeks ago I pressed the Minister to look into this problem of road communications and the answer I received was that this is a matter for the county councils.
Is it right, when all this development is taking place, for the Minister to hive off such an important question as this, bearing in mind the introduction of the Bill, and taking into account the final investment which is taking place? Technically, I suppose, it could be said to be correct, but does the Minister realise the kind of increase in traffic which is already taking place, and the increase which is likely to take place soon? I am sure that it is unrealistic, unenterprising and completely unimaginative to talk about all these provisions and then do nothing about the roads. To divorce all these from road communication is very wrong. If the Continental ports have excellent roadways leading up to them, something must be done about our motorways, too.
Tomorrow, a new car ferry service opens between Harwich and Bremerhaven. From Bremerhaven to Basle there is a 500-mile motorway connecting the port to the heart of the continental industrial area. From Harwich to our industrial areas there is a road running to Colchester which can be best described—and the hon. Lady must know that this is correct—as one of the best antiques in the country. It is pre-war in its construction and winding and turning and completely out of date for our modern industrial age.
Is it any wonder that in Germany productivity and exports are far ahead of ours? Let the Minister stop being so lethargic and complacent. He should be concerned about the welfare facilities, but, as I have said, this matter must go hand in hand with a proper and imaginative road policy. Let him make Harwich to Colchester the first leg of a motorway stretching to the Midlands.—I was

extremely envious when I heard the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West talking about a motorway which went right up to the Port of Bristol. It made me think of some of the bad road services which we are getting in what must be a gateway to Europe.
If our exports are to arrive in good time there must be not only good communication, but careful and expert handling in the docks. I am glad to support those parts of the Bill which add to the status of the dock workers, but I warn the Minister about the problem of the roads. I have pressed it hard this afternoon, and it was my intention to do so, because it must go hand in hand with any progressive ports policy.
I regard the Third Schedule to the Bill as much more far-reaching in some of the controls which it will exert on the docks. What I am afraid of is that the heavy hand of centralisation may prevent the initiatives which have been taken by some of the smaller ports which have succeeded so well in the last few years. Therefore, while I shall not vote against the Bill, I shall certainly look very carefully in Committee at the intentions behind the Schedules to the Bill.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said that he was dumbfounded that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it perfectly clear that the Labour Party's policy on which we fought the election was still our policy and that it would be carried out. I should have been dumbfounded if that statement had not been made and if we had not been told today that it was the Government's intention to bring the ports into public ownership.
However, the right hon. Gentleman made an extremely valid point. He said that it was necessary to have a firm statement as to the period of the operation of the Bill. I agree with him. I accept the argument that it is very important that there should not be any misunderstanding, either by the management or the men in the industry, about their future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the debate, will tell us how long the Bill is likely to be in operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), who made his maiden speech, said that he felt that the Bill was a first step. I see it rather is a halfway house. If one goes into the provisions of the Bill, it is not even a halfway house. But it is a slight movement in the right direction. Unfortunately, however, it shies away from the only solution if we are to solve the problems of the docks. I see it as a belated attempt to put into operation some of the proposals contained in the Rochdale Report of 1962. The Bill undoubtedly will have the effect of reducing the number of employers. In that sense, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a positive step forward; but it does not go far enough.
The Rochdale Report states, on page 35:
In each port a proportion of the number of employers is, we understand, virtually inactive, but even allowing for this we are convinced that without a substantial reduction in the numbers in most ports it will not be possible either to attain economically the higher degree of decasualisation of labour which is so desirable … or to achieve the most efficient operating methods. As regards cargo handling, we recommend that this should be carried out by a smaller number of substantial employers of labour, all with some financial stake in the port, and that one of these should be the port authority itself.
The Report emphasised that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board actually possessed the powers to be a master porter but did not use them.
It is clear from Clauses 5 and 6 that in future all the port authorities will be able to employ dock labour. It is not obligatory. This is a weakness in the Bill. I believe that it should be obligatory; it should not be merely a question of choice. This is why I say that the Bill is not even a halfway house. It would be if it made it obligatory on the port authorities to be employers of labour.
The Bill should be radically changed, not only to make it obligatory for the port authority to be an employer, but to go much further and to make provision for reducing the number of employers right down to one. It is unnecessary to have a whole number of employers. The employer of labour should be the port authority in each case. Under the Bill that can be done even without public ownership. It is possible to change the character of the Bill to ensure that there

is one employer, certainly in our major ports. We should contemplate doing that, even at this stage.
After the Rochdale Report was published, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board established a sub-committee to go into the question of the numbers of master porters in Liverpool. Liverpool Trades Council and Labour Party, of which then I was a very prominent member, decided to send people to the sub-committee and put our point of view. In fact, we were asked by the sub-committee what our views were on this question. I would quote from a letter, because I want to make this point to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East, who tried to give the impression that the people who were demanding one employer for the industry and perhaps nationalisation, were wreckers.

Sir K. Joseph: Oh, no. With respect, I carefully differentiated between those like the hon. Member and his hon. Friends, who, without any ill will, want nationalisation, and the views of a few wreckers at the docks. I think that the House with remember that.

Mr. Heller: I accept the right hon. Member's view on this, and I am sorry if I imputed wrong motives, but what he said did not sound very happy to me.
The Liverpool Trades Council and Labour Party are very responsible bodies. In January, 1963, the letter which they sent to that sub-committee of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board said:
Your letter of 27th December, inviting my Trades Council to make known their views on the above matter, was discussed at our last meeting, and we wish to suggest to the sub-committee who are considering this matter that the best interest of the port can be served more efficiently by there being only one employer, and that it should be a public body.
That was in 1963, when the Trades Council and the Labour Party in Liverpool made their views known.
Now I come to—if you like—an even more responsible body. I say that because we have been charged in Liverpool that the Liverpool Trades Council can perhaps be regarded as being a little irresponsible. We conduct some pretty strong campaigns against the right hon. Member's party. But this is a very responsible body in the form of one man, the regional secretary of the Transport


and General Workers' Union, and a more respected citizen could never be found in Liverpool, I can assure the House. What did he say? He also wrote a letter to the sub-committee of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on this very question, and put forward his regional committee's point of view. He said:
We agree with the Rochdale Committee that there are far too many employers with licences operating on the docks, some of them spasmodically, some reasonably, and others fully engaged. They range from shipping firms loading and discharging their own ships to nominee firms employed by their sponsors, and also the master porter who waits like Micawber for something to turn up.… It is the view of the Union that provided it is practicable one authority should be the sole employer on the docks. This would have tremendous economic advantages, and could operate in conjunction with the present National Dock Labour Board system. It could co-ordinate plant, machinery and labour movements, as well as guaranteeing full employment and fringe benefits.
This was the view of the Transport and General Workers' Union's regional committee in 1963. I am assuming, on the basis of present experience, that it is its view at the present time.
There is one further authority which has already been quoted here this afternoon. I should like to call upon the election manifesto of the Labour Party itself. My hon. Friend quoted from that manifesto. I merely want to underline the point about "including stevedore". Of course it can be argued that it did not say "immediately". Of course it did not say "immediately". I accept that it would not be possible overnight to bring the docks under public ownership, but with the Bill we are considering the question of the number of employers in our ports and the argument is that we must reduce the number of employers because certain employers, anyway, do not really employ anybody, and some of them are very inefficient; therefore, we should concentrate the number of employers to the larger employers. Then we are told, at the same time, that we hope that the employers will really bring in some decent amenities along the line of docks.
Well, let us look at the logic of that argument. In the first place, those who did not employ anybody naturally had no say in improving amenities along the line of docks. Therefore, the largest

number of employers, the bigger ones, will still be the same employers who have never provided the amenities along the line of docks. What we are suggesting in the Bill is that we should keep those same employers in existence and even make them bigger.
To me, the logic of that is that, to get the proper amenities, and to get efficiency, the answer is to bring about one employer. As I said earlier we can do that even before we bring the docks under public ownership, and we can do that by making each port authority the employer of the dockers. I see even this as only the first step. It can be only the first step because the real need is to bring the docks under public ownership.
I turn to Part II of the Bill, the question of amenities. I worked along the line of docks in Liverpool for many years. I was a senior shop steward in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and at one time was deputed by my committee to write a pamphlet on the question of welfare facilities.—It was not enjoyable, writing that pamphlet, but the more I went into it the sadder I became.
Let me quote some of the proposals in that pamphlet. These were long-term proposals. I shall come to the short-term ones in a minute. What did we say? We said:
That there should be washhouses at places adjacent to the canteens, or in smaller units, which would include not only washing, shower and bathing facilities, but also individual lockers for each employee, so that he could change his clothing before commencing, and on leaving, work. This would enable men to come to work and go home in a clean and tidy condition and not cause embarrassment on public transport. It would raise the dignity of the industrial worker to his rightful place.
The fact that I wrote that in November, 1962, as something which was needed as a long-term prospect for workers in the docks in Liverpool, is adequate proof— one could not find more adequate proof —of the lack of amenities. Indeed, there were no amenities at all for dock workers.
The second long-term proposal went further. It said:
Rest rooms, with reading facilities and games facilities should also be provided for use during meal hours. Such facilities are increasingly provided in industry by the larger employers, and are widespread in the U.S.A., Sweden and Western Germany.


Now I will come to the immediate needs. One item in a long list was:
That drying-rooms be built, so that men can dry, clothing due to either getting wet on their way to work or when doing essential jobs during inclement weather.
Drying rooms still do not exist. They were an immediate need in 1962, so that men who worked in the rain on ships, loading and discharging cargoes, should have somewhere to dry their clothes. What an indictment of the employers!
What does the Devlin Report say about that, because these are the employers who will still be there? On page 32, it has this to say about amenities:
We cannot acquit the employers on the charge of dragging their feet. It may be that pressure from the trade union side was restrained by a feeling that what money could be got from the employers was better not diverted from increases in the pay packet. But the initiative clearly lay with the employers. It was their duty, individually or collectively, to attend to facilities of this sort and it is they who find the finance for the Board.
There is a clear indictment of the employers. That is why I want to put it to the House again that, if it is right, under the Bill, to reduce the number of employers, it is right to reduce them down to one so that there will be not only the proper capital investment in our docks for modernisation, but investment in the workers along the line of docks, investment in decent conditions, in welfare facilities and in proper amenities. That is why I make the plea that, as an interim measure, we should bring the number of employers down further, to one.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that I could have gone on at greater length to speak about the appalling conditions of dock workers in Liverpool and elsewhere, but I think that the case has been adequately made out.
Unfortunately, the Bill is the wrong Bill, and it is introduced at the wrong time. We should have had another Bill, perhaps a little later, which definitely carried out reasonably early the overall policy of the Labour Party for the public ownership of the docks. We have not got that Bill in front of us yet, but I urge that, in the meantime, we should amend the present Bill so that we have only one employer in each port, and that employer should be the port authority. At the same time, we should introduce into the Bill a

schedule of the sorts of amenities that we must see put into operation immediately.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that she hoped that the employers would not wait for the necessary legislation of enforcement. On the basis of past bitter experience, all that I can say is, what a hope! I wish that something positive would be done. It is true that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is doing something, but the actual employers of labour are doing nothing about it. That is why we must have one employer, the port authority, as the first stage. The second stage must be the full public ownership of the docks.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Tatton Brinton: I was fascinated, as I have no doubt many hon. Members were, to hear the very strong and cogent reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) for the nationalisation of the docks. He based the case for that major step largely on the advice given by the Liverpool Trades Council and the regional committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union, both bodies which one would naturally expect to support the nationalisation of almost anything, including the docks.
We have heard the indication, which is clearly set out in the Labour Party's election manifesto as well, that it is proposed to nationalise the docks. But how that ties in with the Bill which we are asked to consider on Second Reading defeats me completely. If that is the intention, I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that we do not need the present Bill at all. Let us have a genuine attempt at a nationalisation Bill, tying into it the solutions which the Government may or may not be able to propose for all the problems faced by the docks. Let us have it honestly put in front of us.
We have before us, instead, a Bill which is couched in terms implying a substantial measure of security for, at any rate, some of the existing employers. If he has not got any security, what employer will undertake the investment for which the Government are pleading in the Bill itself, by implication, and in several eloquent speeches to which we have listened?
The Government have not laid on the line what they mean by the nationalisation of the docks, in any case. It seems


to be quietly set aside that the majority of the docks and practically all the larger ones are already in public ownership. I think that the Manchester docks are the only ones which are run by a body corporate that is not a public authority. Presumably, they are referring to that passage in the Labour Party manifesto in which they refer to
… making each Port Authority ultimately responsible for all port operations within its own area.
As an employer of labour and as an operator of machinery, it is presumably to carry out all functions.
In any case, I should like to know how it is to be operated. We are not dealing now with an industry such as coal mining or the railways, which are fairly homogenous. Docks are of an enormous variety. They carry out a great number of different functions in the importing, exporting and handling of various products. Is it to be suggested that each of those products and each of those operations, with their specialised techniques, will be handled adequately by one single authority? I would suggest that that is the straight recipe for the usual muddle and inefficiency that one gets with any organisation which is too large, including all the nationalised undertakings that we have already.
The intention to nationalise ultimately explains one of the anomalies in the Bill, which is that the port authorities themselves are to be the licensing authorities. That goes against the specific recommendations of the Devlin Committee. None the less, it is, from the Government's point of view, a useful step towards an ultimate nationalisation scheme for the whole of our docks if we talk about the elimination of all the independent employers.
By giving the immediate port authority a strong measure of authority over those employers who still remain when the Bill comes into operation, we shall hasten the day when possibly the port authorities can push out the competing employers within their port areas even without a nationalisation Bill. I suggest that this particular and rather peculiar quirk in the Bill is tied in with the intentions expressed by the hon. Lady.
I have mentioned the question of specialists, those who import specialised

goods such as meat and other things which require specialised handling and machinery, and I should like now to go on to say something about the effect on them and on a number of other employers of the compensation provisions of the Bill.
Forgetting for the moment the ultimate intention to kick everybody out, presumably the intention of the compensation scheme is to obtain some rough justice between those who are dispossessed and those who remain, on the basis that those who remain as employers in the docks must benefit by the absence of those who have gone. Obviously this will not be entirely true. Some employers will take over extra labour and increase the size of their operations at the expense of of those who disappear. Others will remain the same size. This applies particularly to wharfingers and specialised people of that kind who will carry on as they are doing now without necessarily acquiring any extra labour, and without necessarily requiring any extra labour.
In fact they will continue to do what they are doing now, and will not benefit in any way from the disappearance of a number of small stevedore companies, yet, because their labour is employed under the Dock Labour Scheme, such companies will be assessed to pay into the compensation pool. In spite of the fact that one company decasualised its labour many year ago and has a permanent staff now, it will have to pay into the compensation pool the same proportion in relation to the number of employees as any other employer who is expanding the scope of his activities. I should like the Minister to look into this to see whether the provision is fair, because it seems to me that if someone is gaining nothing he should not have to cough up large sums of compensation.
I do not know what the compensation will amount to, but let us consider the five largest ports in the country. According to the Devlin Report, there were at the time of the Report 371 employers in total in these five ports. Devlin suggested that they should be reduced to about 50, and we have heard that in the enclosed London docks they have gone one better than the figure suggested by the Devlin Report and have reduced voluntarily to nine when ten was recommended. There will, therefore, be a substantial number of employers going out.
The Financial Memorandum to the Bill, while being pretty cagey as to how much money will be required, suggests that it may be necessary to provide up to £5 million for some incidental expenses, but in the main for financing the initial compensation payment to the dispossessed employers. I realise that we have talked only about the five largest ports, and that about 80 ports are mentioned in the First Schedule. It may be that much of the expense will lie there, but one imagines that most of the money will come into the five largest ports. What sort of sums will the continuing employers have to find as a share of possibly £5 million which is to be paid in compensation to those who disappear?
It may be that the remaining employers will have to find large sums of money. If they do, such a sum will represent a capital investment for the future to the employer who finds the money. If, in three years' time, the Government come along and say, "We have had time to stand up and shake the water off ourselves and get something done, and we are going to nationalise the docks", a man who has paid £150,000, or perhaps £200,000, in compensation to a disappearing employer will be faced with the problem of wondering whether he will get his money back by way of compensation for being nationalised.
If I know anything of the views of many hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway, the answer to that is, "Not if they can help it", so why should such employers stay in business now? That being so, what is the Bill about if we are not giving the existing employer hope for the future and hope that he will receive encouragement or see back the money which he is being asked to pay now for compensation?
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, has left the Chamber. A considerable part of his speech was devoted to the question of amenities. There is no doubt that amenities in the docks are shockingly bad. A great deal of blame for this—and the Devlin Report is quoted in support of the contention—is always laid at the door of the employer, but those who are listening to this debate —and we have had some very good speeches today—understand that an employer in the docks is very different

from an employer of factory labour in ordinary life.
An employer in the docks may have no local habitation or home. For instance, many of the lighter companies have no premises of their own. They operate in other people's premises up and down the river. How, therefore, can a lighter company provide facilities and amenities for its employees at the place where they are likely to be wanted? It obviously cannot. We are faced with many anomalies of this kind, and it seems to me that the simplest answer to this—and I shall be interested to hear the views of someone who has spent a long time in the docks—is for the owner of the dock facilities to provide the amenities where they are required.
The Devlin Report says that the Port of London Authority does not provide amenities because it is not an employer of labour, and there is no reason why it should provide amenities for the benefit of other people's employees, but, given the fact that in many cases employers are not working in their own buildings, and do not have their own buildings, what can be done to provide the necessary amenities?
We have been asked to provide drying rooms, lavatories, wash basins, showers, and so on. All these things must automatically go with the building on the dock side. Surely the owner of the building should provide them, and, whether the owner is the port authority or a person, he should recover his costs in the same way as the owner of any other building does when people use it, namely, by making a charge for the use of the building with its facilities.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest one instance in the last 80 years where an employer has made that suggestion to a port authority?

Sir T. Brinton: I am afraid that I cannot. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is capable of saying that they have not done so.
The real problem which faces us is that the Bill and I am forgetting the problem of nationalisation—is devoted to producing a situation in which the dock labour force will be more contented, will receive


a squarer deal, and will have better amenities. To this extent the Bill is to be welcomed, but, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, this is only a small part, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) pointed out, probably the easier part, of the whole problem. What is still to come in the settlement of the wage negotiations, of the whole pay structure, and of the methods of work in the industry will be infinitely more difficult, and it is to be hoped that at least the ground work laid down by this Bill will prepare the way for a co-operative attitude on the part of the trade unions when we come to negotiate all those matters.
The difficulty which I have in mind is one which I do not think is by any means peculiar to the docks. It is the difficulty of piece rates when they are applied to increasingly mechanised, and if I may use the word de-personalised, forms of working. When a man's earnings are closely and measurably related to the physical work that he puts in it is comparatively simple to operate piece rates, but the more mechanised the operation becomes, as in the case of the new meat handling sheds at B Berth in the Royal Docks—which will eliminate an enormous amount of physical work, replacing it by possibly quite skilled but not so measurable work on the part of port employees—piece rates become increasingly difficult to apply. We must find some method of rewarding productivity more indirectly than by piece rates.
We must also ensure that in the future the capital which the nation has tied up in the docks and harbours is fully used. This is some of the largest and heaviest capital equipment in the country, and it is ridiculous that it should be worked only on one shift. Apart from the under-usage of the already existing capital equipment and the future equipment which will be put in there is the under-usage of ships, because of the slow turn-round and the long time-lag during which the ship is doing nothing. That cannot be an efficient use of expensive capital equipment. This is one of the objectives which the Government and employers must have constantly in mind in negotiating, because it is one of the keys to productivity—and productivity is the key to everything else.
At present the docks are a bottleneck. If all that is hoped for comes to pass; if, in the end, all the labour difficulties are settled, the necessary amenities are provided, and there is co-operation on all sides, together with increased capital equipment, we may be able to free that bottleneck. But my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) made a valid point when he said that we are not providing behind the docks the sort of equipment that is needed. This is an integrated operation. The docks are merely one link in the whole transport organisation. It is no use solving the problem of the docks if we merely shift the bottleneck one step back. We have to strengthen the organisation of the railways, the roads, the mechanised warehouses and stores and the whole transport system behind the docks if we are going to take advantage of the improvements which we hope to see soon.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I am moved to speak because of the stupefaction of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I found it most amusing and thoroughly unconvincing. On several occasions he said that he was amazed, staggered and alarmed by the statement of my hon. Friend that the docks would ultimately be brought under public ownership. He described this as a bombshell. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but that is not my fault. He would have us believe that this was the last thing he expected to hear today, and yet nine-tenths of the copious notes from which he read dealt with this very point. He hardly dealt with the Bill at all.
He evidently spent the weekend preparing a case which had nothing to do with the Bill. There are about 50 Clauses in it, but he did not refer to one. This is odd behaviour for a right hon. Gentleman opening a debate for the Opposition. There is one other indication of the way his mind was working. He was able to describe my hon. Friend's statement as a late interpolation in her speech, written by somebody else. Where he obtained this detailed inside information about a Minister's speech I do not know, but it indicates that he knew what was coming, and he therefore had no right to express his astonishment.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I must correct the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). My right hon. Friend was a little put out because the notes for his speech were directed entirely to the Bill. He found it difficult to argue a complete case on his notes when the Minister made a point of which he had no knowledge whatsoever. The hon. Member has got the wrong end of the stick. If he had watched my right hon. Friend he would have seen that he did not use his notes at all.

Mr. Delargy: I watched him like a hawk. He read his notes extremely carefully, and one by one, as he had finished the pages of his notes, he tore them up. Most of his speech concerned nationalisation.
My hon. Friend's statement was the most interesting thing in her speech. It was the one thing that we wanted to hear above everything else. Why hon. Members opposite should be astonished that the Labour Party is once again keeping its pledges I do not know. Hon. Members opposite should know from past experience not to be amazed. The right hon. Gentleman asked whoever was going to wind up when the state of uncertainly will be ended. I, can tell him that within certain limits it will be ended in this Parliament, because that is what we said in our election manifesto and we keep our promises.
Nevertheless, the Bill does not seem to have pleased anybody very much so far. As was indicated, it is an interim Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), in his splendid maiden speech—and one would not have imagined it was a maiden speech—described it as a step forward. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) said that it was not even a halfway house. I am inclined to agree.
It could have two good results. It night introduce a little order into the confusion at the docks. This would be welcomed by the docker as much as anyone else, because he does not like to see his efforts wasted, as they so often are. Secondly, it might improve the amenities at the docks. The Minister said that

some employers, without waiting for legislation, are already improving these welfare amenities. I do not know who gave her that information. 1 do not know what inspection her informants had carried out, but they certainly had not visited Tilbury, where conditions are disgraceful. There has been no improvement, and there will not be until legislation is introduced. Perhaps the Bill will provide for that.
I also hope that from now on, since. provision is made for amenities, hon. Members representing dockside constituencies, as well as other hon. Members, will be able to raise, by way of Questions, the subject of welfare conditions in their constituencies, and will receive answers. from responsible Ministers.
This is a first necessary step to the decasualisation of labour. Most dockers no longer object to decasualisation, but they have some misgivings and suspicions. Many, also, are not happy about the Amendments to the Dock Labour Scheme which have recently been published and are now being re-examined. Individual dockers and their trade union branches have expressed their misgivings to me, and no doubt to other hon. Members. More than 1,000 Tilbury men have sent me postcards of protest, each with the sender's name, address and registered number.
It is no good saying that this is the work of unofficial committees. I have no doubt that they started it and organised it, but they cannot compel thousands of men to sign postcards and send them. It is clear that the men share their apprehensions. This will go on so long as dockers are not taken into consultation and until ultimately there is some form of workers' control in the docks.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that in this Bill provision might have been made, could and should have been made, for the present docks to have been taken over by the bodies which will now become licensing authorities. The change-over to public ownership would have been very much easier than it is likely to be. We welcome the Bill somewhat tepidly chiefly because these long-awaited and much-needed amenities might be introduced and the dockers' comfort and dignity might be maintained.
An hon. Member opposite spoke about, dockers being embarrassed on public


transport. Only yesterday a man who was a docker some time ago told me that when he was working with fishmeal and went into a railway train all the other passengers would leave. He said, "You don't have any pride left." We must restore the dockers' pride. They expect us to do so and this Labour Government should do so. I hope that the Government will do so.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has referred in most interesting terms to the important question of amenities. I am sure that it is the general view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is a very great and real need for improvement of amenities in the docks. I do not think anyone will dispute that.
I have seen a great deal of what at present exists in the docks. I have been able to compare it with the type of amenity provided, not only in docks in other parts of the world but in other industries in other parts of the world. I have compared the worst with the best. I take as the best something like the amenities in the Swedish shipyard of Arendal. Such amenities are provided on the Clyde, but there is the old saying about taking a horse to water. A shipowner on the Clyde who intended to follow this good example, found great difficulty in persuading his employees to take advantage of it.
It is significant that the Department of Economic Affairs in the latest but one brochure on "Changing Britain, Sinews of Prosperity," should have referred to industries which can do most to increase exports or to compete with imports. Although it did not specifically refer to the docks and ports, I am sure that the authors of the pamphlet had them in mind. What a sad day it is that this sinew should be in a nationally self-imposed vice.
The whole country is waiting for the vice to be removed so that circulation can be restored. We would be deluding ourselves if we thought that it could be restored through one limb, for its circulation must be throughout the body economic. If the settlement is unreasonable we would again be deluding our-

selves if we thought it was not a settlement achieved at the cost of the total export cost structure and the total import cost structure of the country. This is why we should be so much more concerned with the total global implication, but I must not stray from the Bill.
This is an interesting Bill, and it has obvious flaws. The flaws to which I wish to refer are concerned with the control by port authorities. In the Annual Report of the National Ports Council it is said that the Council
consistently maintained that the right system would be for local port authorities to be the licensing authorities, with port employers having a right of appeal to the Council.
This, of course, lines up closely with what Lord Rochdale himself concluded in his Report. The National Ports Council said that it did not regard the disagreement between itself and the Devlin Committee as particularly important.
Shipowners regard this as particularly important in one specific context. That is in the case of ports controlled by the British Transport Docks Board. Schedule I refers to 19 such ports controlled by the Board. All the rest are controlled by locally-based port authorities which automatically will fall within the provisions of the Bill. In those controlled by the Board there is already considerable centralised control. In practice this will involve decentralisation of decisions which would impose a very heavy weight of decision on local chief docks managers. Many shipowners would regard this as an unreasonable burden of decision for them to carry.
The National Ports Council has made very limited progress in the creation of new port authorities which were envisaged by the Rochdale Committee. Shipowners accept the need for new authorities. They have no quarrel with the Port of London Authority and other great authorities which administer our docks. They had some quarrel with the extension of the British Transport Docks Board authority, but they have been prepared to accept that provided there is a local executive board—not merely an advisory board—on which shipowners and other commercial interests can make their views known on what obviously will be very important and continuing developments, involving a great deal of public and private money.
This was confirmed only this morning by the Confederation of British Industry which, in its report on transport policy and services, concludes in a paragraph about the docks:
Local port authority boards, though smaller in numbers, should be characterised as heretofore by local and user representation, so that every encouragement is given to interport competition, healthy rivalry, local enterprise and initiative.
I am sure that the whole House will welcome any progress which can be made towards decasualisation. The whole concept of casual labour and of labour being in any sense a commodity available at the turn of a tap is outdated and outworn. The sooner we can get rid of it the happier everyone will be. What has surprised me is that in the Bill there is no attempt to relate decasualisation to productivity. This can be, and has been, done. I have referred before to the astonishingly interesting and successful agreement which employers on the West Coast of the United States concluded with dock labour an the West Coast. There the phrase used was that they "bought the book". The employers put in 27 million dollars and there was a complete withdrawal of restrictive practices involved in a general scheme of decasualisation.
If successfully applied, the Bill will achieve a very considerable measure of decasualisation, but who is to pay for it, and how will it be paid for? It certainly will not be automatically done by any arrangements and improvements in productivity and agreed measures to increase, output in the docks. It is important to relate our general complaint about the lack of amenity to the economic conditions which make amenity possible. All amenities cost money. The more productive the activity the more surpluses there are out of which amenities can be provided. This applies as much to the docks as to anything else.
I turn to the question of inland clearance depots. In Clause 35 the Bill extends port authorities to include inland clearance depots in any schemes which are devised. I am a little suspicious about this. Does it mean that dock labour must be employed in an inland container depot? I should like a very specific answer from the Minister about this. If the answer is "Yes", where does it stop? For example, if there is a large

container flow of completely knocked-down motor parts—and I understand that this is one of the most important flows from the British motor industry abroad—and if this justifies the flow of 30 to 40 containers a week from the wholesaler's warehouse or the manufacturer's warehouse where the parts are packed, this will become in every significant and economic sense of the word an inland clearance depôt.
Will this mean that the manufacturer's warehouse is also defined as an inland clearance depot and therefore subject to everything in the Bill? If so, we must be quite specific about the consequences. The consequences are that this labour will essentially be defined as dock labour and will be subject to all the rules, productivity restrictions and so on of dock labour.
Hon. Members may wonder why I am so interested in this point. The reason is that when I went around North America two or three times, looking at container depots, one of the points made to me over and over again by those dealing with the new system, which by common consent on both sides of the House is not only important but is certain to arise, was that they generally sought, if possible, to avoid placing their container depots within the dock area. It is a point which gave rise to some inquiry.
I inquired why it should be so, and the answer will interest the House. It was, that, generally speaking, the productivity of the labour employed outside the dock area, doing identical work, was two or two-and-a-half times that inside the dock area, and therefore employers went to very great lengths indeed to keep these container depots outside the dock area.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Did the port authority explain why that was so?

Mr. Lloyd: No. I had no discussion with the port authorites concerned. I had discussions with the operators of container depots. I should have thought that the explanation was quite simple—the general range of restrictive practices which existed up to that time on the West Coast and which applied specifically inside the dock area. Two entirely different trade unions were involved and one applied a completely different set of


practices from the other. This is an important point which we must not overlook.
May I deal with the question of licensing? In Clause 5 there is a most astonishing range of licensing provisions. When I read it I thought of the great exponent of the art of commercial licensing the Frenchman, Colbert. If he were to read this Clause he would regard himself as one of the arch-apostles of free enterprise. This is the most astonishing set of restrictive, bureaucratic definitions of what may and may not be done that has appeared in a Bill for a very long time.
It is clear that the Minister may not only specify the number of dock workers. He may restrict
the employment of dock workers to a specified berth",
he may restrict
the operations in which the applicant may engage".
first, to
the handling of cargoes of a specified description
and then with verbal dexterity to
cargo handling operations of a specified description
and, finally, he may limit and define
the provision of ancillary services of a specified description.
After that he may make regulations to
vary any description of condition so specified or described".
Is this not a classic example of delegated legislation of the most dangerous type? As I see it—I may be wrong—the Minister may do exactly what he pleases in this respect. Certainly it is subject to appeal, but one knows the way in which these things work. By the time the Minister has set up all the regulations and given licences and defined the conditions, a great deal has been done, and the whole process of appeal against is generally much less efficient than the process of imposing from above.
May I refer, briefly, to what is to some extent one of the objectives which the Bill seeks to achieve? It sets out to make the docks industry of this country more receptive to the whole container revolution to which the Minister referred and about which some of us know a great deal. It seems to me that this is utterly inconsistent with licensing. I

cannot help wondering whether the two great developers of this system, which I remind the House were two great free-enterprise companies, one on the West Coast and the other on the East Coast of the United States, Matson and Sealand Company, would have achieved what they have achieved—and it is an achievement of which we are taking increasing cognisance—had they had to go to some Ministry and to apply for a licence to start what they were setting out to do. I am convinced that they would not.
It seems to me that the response to a commercial challenge and the capacity for response to a commercial challenge is just as clearly needed in the docks system as anywhere else. It is just as clearly needed within the broad embrace of the set of public authorities as it is within the private enterprise system. How does this happen? How did containers start? In the first place, on the West Coast of the United States, there was a response to a specific definition: how shall we invest our capital more successsfully? A young and brilliant operational research scientist was given his head and was told to examine the whole of the company's operations and to advise them what to do. He produced a most interesting report. He decided that the area most critically requiring capital investment was that of cargo handling. He was given his head, and the scheme went ahead from that point onwards, and the container was introduced.
On the East Coast an entirely different set of stimuli operated. A large-scale lorry operator whose trade was mainly between New York and Puerto Rico found that his lorries were meeting with increasing congestion in the docks—doubtless a familiar problem today. He found that he could not beat the existing system; it could not be changed to meet his requirements. There was no possibility of moving conventional cargo faster in conventional ships. He therefore bought the fleet which was carrying his cargoes to Puerto Rico and, at great risk to himself—a most challenging thing to do—he converted five of them into container ships. Next to Matson, it was the first operation of its kind ever done. This commercial response to a commercial challenge is the origin of the


container movement which the Minister is now trying to adapt our ports to receive.
It gives me great pleasure that at Harwich it happened to be a nationalised industry which in the first instance showed a specific constructive response to this challenge. I have always argued that we need this response in the public is well as in the private sector, that we should not be too doctrinaire in defining how it should be done and that we should be very careful in the organisation of our affairs not to define such a response out of existence in the legislation which we set up to deal with the matter from the very beginning.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: May I, first, welcome very sincerely the welfare aspects of the Bill? They are long overdue. As other hon. Members have said, they are the welfare aspects which should have been introduced into the House many years ago. We must give the docker a sense of dignity, and he cannot have this without he proper washing and other facilities being available. When he has to leave the docks and go home in public transport in the condition in which he has seen working, he cannot have a sense of dignity. We therefore welcome the amenity provisions of the Bill.
I could not help feeling a little cynicism at the apparent amazement of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Sir K. Joseph) when my hon. Friend commented on nationalisation. We all know that nationalisation of the docks has been part of the Labour Party programme. It was in the election manifesto. We all know that the only question has been how long it would take. The dockers want it. Perhaps I may quote from a letter which I received only this morning from Southampton dockers:
We, the members of Southampton docks local decasualisation committee"—
an official body, not one of the unofficial bodies—
whose names are attached, fully support the Labour Party's policy of the nationalisation of the docks.
There is a whole row of signatures of all the docker representatives on that committee in the Port of Southampton.
They go on—and I share their view—that express certain doubts about the Bill. The first question they ask is why certain ports are excluded from the Bill. It would seem to me that the opportunity should have been taken to include all ports in the Bill, whether or not they are members of the present Dock Labour Scheme. During the past few years there has been quite an increase in cargo going through these ports, and there has been an increase, also, in the number of unregistered dockers, with no facilities, no protection and no pension scheme.
The second point—one on which I should like a reply is that the dockers are very worried about the effect of the licensing procedure. Of course, it is a very good thing to reduce the number of employers in our ports. It is possible that in Southampton, the port which I represent, the number will be reduced to something like four, but we are worried about what will be the position of the Dock Labour Board in all this. At the moment, in Southampton we have a system by which the Dock Labour Board allocates labour to the various employers. By this means they are enabled to operate a work-sharing scheme.
One of the difficulties in the docks is that not all jobs are the same. For instance, some employers concentrate mostly on piece work; others concentrate mainly on day work, while others concentrate on day work with plenty of overtime. This is a problem, because unless the work is shared out equally among the dock workers there can be a very grave and serious difference in earnings between one group of dockers and another. At present, this works fairly well, because the work is shared out. A person may be employed on piece work on one occasion and then on another occasion will take his turn on normal day work.
However, what is the position under the new proposals? Let us assume that there are four employers in the port which I represent. This is the sort of figure that has been quoted. As I see the Bill, a firm would seek to take on some workers as permanent employees. But if that firm dealt mainly with day work, with no overtime or piece work, it would be very difficult to find dock workers to go to that employer. It may be that a scheme will be worked out by the committee which is considering the matter, so that


the Dock Labour Board can continue the sort of system that operates in many docks at the moment regarding work-sharing. We have got to deal with this point very quickly because it is making dockers in many ports very suspicious of the Bill. If we can get this point answered to their satisfaction, and if we can assure them that under the new licensing system that the Bill introduces there will be the same opportunities for work-sharing as exist at the moment, we shall have gone a long way to allay the suspicions of the dock workers.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I see the Bill as a transitional measure only. Eventually, we must make a much more drastic reorganisation of all our docks throughout the country. It may well be that we shall have to reduce the number of docks, drastic as that may sound. We may certainly have to reduce the number of authorities. I have never been convinced that the present plans for setting-up estuarial authorities to deal with administration in various estuaries is a good idea. A national body such as a national ports authority must come eventually, and I hope quickly, for the present scheme can only be transitional.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The position of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour can fairly be described as somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea. Hon. Members opposite have given the Bill a very cool reception whereas we on this side of the House have, on balance, welcomed it. The hon. Lady herself is, therefore, put in the rather unfortunate position of promoting the Second Reading of a Bill and then saying that the Government will very soon produce further measures which, if they are introduced by say, the end of the year, will clearly make it impossible for the Bill to work at all.
I welcome the Bill. Having spent some seven years in the shipping industry, I particularly welcome the improvement which it is proposed to make in amenities in the docks. I also welcome the move which it makes towards decasualisation. I think it important to point out that decasualisation could open up a whole new era for the docks inasmuch as it would encourage employers and employees to take a more responsible

attitude. It should do much to diminish the labour-management tensions which have resulted, as the Devlin Report points out, from the casual system of labour in the docks. But it can only do this if employers are encouraged to invest more and to introduce better facilities, and they will not do this if they believe that they will be nationalised in a very short time. A policy of "invest now and be nationalised tomorrow" cannot hope to create an improved situation in the docks which I believe we would all like to see.
My first point on the Bill is that it is, as it stands, very much employer-and-employee orientated, and is not orientated towards the customer of the dock industry—that is to say, the shipowners who are using our dock and harbour facilities. This is largely because the proposals in the Devlin Report which were concerned with decasualisation have been incorporated in the Bill, whereas the proposals relating to the removal of retrictive trade practices and so on have been deferred till later.
Indeed, if one looks further into this question of emphasis, the Bill very much reflects the view which I think Lord Brown stated in an article in the Sunday Times last December when he said:
Our most serious task lies in the granting of permanent employment to the whole of the dock labour force.
I think that the operative phrase here is
the whole of the dock labour force.
There is implicit in the Bill the idea that somehow the dock labour force as it now stands and as it is likely to change in the future is in some sense optimum. This is a vitally important point which we need to consider. There has been a considerable reduction in the dock labour force, which now stands at 60,000, which is 23,000 less than in 1948. This trend is likely to continue There is no reason to suppose that the present figure is optimum.
The whole basis of the Bill is that there will not be any redundancy created in the docks because entry into the labour force is restricted and the amount of wastage is likely to be quite high in the future because the age of many of the dockers is above average for industry in general. However, I still think that we need to consider carefully what ought to be the optimum size of the dock labour force, because this has very important


implications for the whole pattern of industry. It would be agreed on both sides of the House, I think, that there has been a tendency, both among those formulating terms of reference for committees and commissions and indeed, in general, to divorce the question of the size of the labour force from the question of the pattern of investment, whereas the two must be answered together.
Lord Rochdale said that investment in the ports should show a proper rate of return to be justified and that this should be consistent with the national interest. However, under the Bill we are to have measures which, as I see them, will raise considerably the cost of employing labour, at least until such time as we can take further measures to increase productivity. This has important implications for the pattern of investment.
In parenthesis, I put a question to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who, I understand, is to wind up the debate. It is not clear from the Bill as it stands how it is proposed to ensure that all the labour now in the docks will be employed on a permanent basis. Employers will be licensed and they will be asked how many men they will take on. Is it intended that any balance will be taken over by the licensing authority and employed by it in some way, or will people be granted licences only if they will take on a given number of men? Are applicants to take on as many as they like, or will the licensing authority try to persuade them, in one way or another, to absorb the whole labour force? The answer will determine an important elernent in employers' costs.
What is the total cost of decasualisation likely to be? Plainly, there will be an increase because, effectively, the fall-back pay of the dock labour force will be raised; all employees will become regular workers whereas at present some are employed only as casual workers. This will effectively become an overhead cost of the dock industry, and it will, therefore, increase the cost of importing and exporting goods through our ports. Moreover, those employers who remain will bear the cost of compensating other employers who leave the industry. The whole tendency under the Bill, therefore, while it may have very desirable results which hon. Members on both sides ap-

prove, will be, by and large, to increase the cost of labour unless—I repeat unless —we can take positive measures to remove restrictive trade practices.
It is relevant in this connection to consider the recommendations of the Devlin Report. On page 126, the Devlin Committee enunciates a fifth principle:
The abolition of restrictive practices, including all practices inhibiting the mobility of labour",
and it goes on to suggest that a distinction should be drawn between
restrictions which are essentially a feature of the casual method of employment, which we class in category A; and all other restrictions, which we class in category B.
If we are considering something which is essentially a decasualisation measure, it is not too much to ask that, in return, there should be specific provisions in the Bill to ensure that restrictive trade practices which grew up because of the casual system of labour should be eliminated. But one searches the Bill in vain for any specific arrangements to attain that desirable objective.
The Devlin Report criticises specifically the working of the continuity rule in the docks, pointing out that this is in some way a protective device which grew up. perhaps, in the depression years before the war. It points out that the continuity rule inhibits the transfer of workers from one hatch to another, from ship to shore and from one ship to another within any given period of employment. It is not too much to ask, if we are to have decasualisation, that employers should be assured that it will be possible for them to overcome the kind of restriction imposed by the continuity rule. I take that as just one example, though a fairly specific one.
On page 30 of its Report the Devlin Committee emphasises the need to encourage shift working, saying that such working cannot readily be extended while the casual system of employment remains. But, as the Bill is designed to eliminate the casual system of employment, is it too much to ask that it should provide also for steps to encourage shift working? At least, will the Minister give an assurance that the committee which is now looking into the whole question of pay and related matters will take definite steps to ensure that in every port where casual labour is eliminated shift working will


be positively encouraged? This is one of the main reasons why our ports are very much worse than those in a number of other European countries in the speed of ship turn-round, which, in turn, inevitably affects our export performance and our balance of payments.
I am a little worried that there is a tendency to say, "If restrictive trade practices are abolished this will result in redundancy, which we cannot tolerate". This is another manifestation of the argument, "We want to encourage productivity, while maintaining employment, regardless of what the demand for the particular kind of labour is". There has been far too little serious analysis of what the pattern of demand for dock facilities in the various ports of the country is likely to be. We may well find that we ought to aim to work with a labour force smaller than that which is compatible with the principles which Lord Devlin, no doubt for political reasons in the sense of feeling that it would be unacceptable to reduce the labour force, put into his Report.
Now, a few observations about the National Plan. I find the whole of the National Plan quite inadequate. The part devoted to the ports, no more than 20 lines in a document about an inch thick, is a totally inadequate appraisal of the industry. It mentions investment in global terms without going into any analysis, and it makes no attempt whatever to analyse what the labour force ought to be in the docks. The whole problem of the ports is dismissed in 20 lines.
In a most interesting speech, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) put the case for nationalising the docks, or, at least, the case for a single employer in a particular port. He quoted a number of authorities in support of his case—I should not myself regard them as particularly good authorities—and talked of the vast economic advantages which could be obtained from having a single employer in a port.
But the hon. Gentleman did not go into any details on this, and I cannot help feeling that his arguments based on economies of scale and so on are somewhat doubtful. By and large, any particular wharf or dock is not particularly susceptible to economies of scale in the

sense that if a number of them are controlled by a single authority unit costs are likely to be reduced very substantially. In my view, the arguments which he advanced were based on somewhat doubtful statistical foundations.
It is relevant to ask the hon. Gentleman, also—he is not here at the moment, but I hope that this will be brought to his attention—where the capital is to come from if we have a single employer. Is it to come from the central Exchequer, in which case we run into all the usual problems of raising money by taxation or borrowing? Is it to come from the local municipal authority, or it is expected to come from private subscribers to the scheme?
In my view, there is a great case for having more competition between employers in the docks and for giving ship owners a choice between one employer and another. Otherwise, ship owners, of whatever nationality, will be faced by a monopolistic stevedore, and who is to determine the prices which should be charged in a situation in which there is only one employer in a port? Still more, who is to do it if all ports are nationalised?
Again on the question of nationalisation, I refer to the fascinating speech made in the debate on the Address by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). He put forward a number of arguments in favour of nationalisation. In particular, he said that there has been very little investment in fixed equipment in the docks. But it depends what one means by "very little". There has been a substantial amount, for example, in the Port of Liverpool. But until the introduction of the Bill there has not been very much incentive for casual employers to invest who have been relying on a casual system of labour. This will be largely eliminated by the Bill.
The second point that the hon. Member made was that we must get away from the present system of employing labour in many of our docks, which he described as rather like an old slave market. He went into graphic details as to how the "free call" takes place in various ports. I have witnessed it in this country and in New Zealand and the United States. A point which needs to be made is that it is a very odd slave market where there are restrictions on entry to it, and there are


considerable restrictions on entry to the labour market in the docks.
If one looks at his other proposals on nationalisation, most of them turn on the use——

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman supporting the conditions under which men who are in the sheds every morning are hired?

Mr. Higgins: No. I have on many occasions been in our docks on these occasions. I welcome the Bill as enthusiastically as hon. Gentlemen opposite because it will lead to the elimination of that practice.
My point is that this is not an argument, as the hon. Member for Poplar was trying to say, for nationalisation. The matter can be put right within the existng framework without nationalisation.
I believe that the alterations brought about by the Bill give real hope that we shall find a radical change in the situation in the docks. We should eliminate the kind of situation that we have just been talking about, we should eliminate most of the evils to which Lord Devlin referred in his Report, and we should also have a real chance to modernise the ports. However, we shall only have this opportunity provided that the employers can be assured that, if they invest in better equipment and better facilities for the docks, they will be able to continue in their occupation.
In his speech in the debate on the Address the Minister of Labour said that he hoped that they would continue, but the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, in opening the debate, has cast an unfortunate doubt on the prospects for investment in the industry at the very moment when what we want to do is to encourage more investment by the employers and labour. I believe that the Bill holds out a real opportunity for that, but I should like to see incorporated in it other measures to eliminate the restrictive trades practices which grew up as a result of the casual system of employment and to deal with shift working.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: First, I must apologise for my non-attendance at the beginning of the debate. I apologise to both Front Bench speakers for

my absence, which was completely unavoidable. I intended to attend for the whole of the debate, but was unable to come here until after the two Front Bench speakers had finished. I regret is very much.
Considering the importance of the debate, I am amazed at the sparse attendance in the Chamber, particularly when things are as they are at present in the country. However, I have listened to words with which I would agree to some extent. Indeed, they are reminiscent of speeches that I have made.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) talked about depersonalisation. Another hon. Member who was sitting just below the Gangway when I made my maiden speech some years ago spoke about a new word, which he suggested was "de-personalisation". I have in the past complained about becoming a depersonalised person. I was trying to speak from the point of view of a young man who was born in a dock area. I was trying to say then what I am saying now. The reason for most of our difficulties in labour is that we felt that we had become economic cyphers and units of production only.

Sir T. Brinton: I was using the word "de-personalisation" in an entirely different sense from that in which the hon. Member is using it. I was referring to the difference between very personal physical work and work done once removed by a machine.

Mr. Mahon: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation.
I had just come from a school where I was taught over the years that I had a dignity which was spiritual, and I was put on the Liverpool dockside, not in the elevated position of a docker but as a scaler boy. I found nothing more incongruous than the idea that I had been taught that my soul and body were one, and going into this terrible situation where I was deprived of all the dignity that I had, or a large part of it.
If we make speeches today, as I shall, which are critical of the Government, it is because of what we know and feel. No one in this House could accuse me of being an out-and-out nationaliser. I give my support to nationalisation where I feel it to be in the best interests of the


country and where I feel it to be completely and utterly moral. Without a shadow of doubt, I would support full nationalisation of the dock system at the earliest possible moment. I make no bones about that. I speak with some authority from the Port of Liverpool. I would tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am not entirely regarded as a Luddite by the managerial classes. Indeed, on my way forward to this House I held managerial positions. The Dock Board has taken advantage of many schemes which have been outlined in this House as modern ones, and years ago I advocated them to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The present manager of that Board, Mr. Dove, is a living witness to the fact that I am most progressive in my attitude towards the docks, dock employment and dock workers.
I welcome the Bill partially, because I know it is a positive step forward to get away from the conditions under which dockers have had to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and I have been in many an escapade in the Port of Liverpool. One of them is reminiscent of what is happening at the moment, and I would express with him the ardent desire that the present situation does not last as long as that one.
The term "dock worker" is used in the Bill. That means only one type of dock worker. But there are many types of dock worker. I would ask the Government Front Bench not to stop their examination of the docks and the dock system at the docker who is working among cargoes. They should look at the conditions of the ship scalers and ship repairers in due time. I recall that in 1924 my late father was giving witness to the Ministry of Labour of the employment of boy labour in the Port of Liverpool. There is still boy labour there and these boys are called dock workers. But there are many types of dock workers and I hope that there will be an examination of conditions, particularly of ship scalers, where there are the most horrible conditions to work in on the dockside. I want to see this because I myself belong to these people. My plea today for betterment of dockland conditions is the result of what I have myself seen.
As a boy of 14, I was told to go to a dock shed, outside of which, in the rain, were 1,000 men. I was told to wave my hand. As a boy of 14 I had to tell 1,000 men that they were not wanted by waving my hand. The impression of that moment is still with me. I take the opportunity now, on behalf of those men, whether they be dead or alive, to make a case for conditions in dockland which they would have wished. What horrible days they were.
My first industrial writing was a study of 1889 dockers' strike. The name of Cardinal Manning may sound incongruous in the context of a dock strike or an industrial dispute. But Cardinal Manning, Tom Mann and Ben Tillett led the first strike for the "docker's tanner" in 1889. With all the charity I possess, I say to those representing the employers that we are talking about what they should do—things that they should have done but have not done since 1889.
What has been stopping employers in all these long, interminable years from doing the things that right hon. and hon. Members opposite now advocate should be done? The conditions of today are almost reminiscent of those prevailing 80 years ago, when Tom Mann, Ben Tillett and Cardinal Manning and others were trying to get a decent deal for the dockers. Ernest Bevin made his name as the "Dockers' K.C." in 1924, with the Shaw Award, and made the same sort of plea for better conditions for dock workers. We have not been asleep. The trade unions have not been asleep. They have been constantly pleading with the employers and with society in general for better conditions for people in dockland.
I am not exaggerating the difficulties that the men have to contend with. Ladies are present in this building today and I do not want to shock them. But my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton knows that I have good reason for saying what I do. Recently, I had to go to a ship at Liverpool to stop trouble over surgical dressings of one kind and another from the Middle East, for the men in their dignity, and with their homes and their children were being asked to do something that was so undignified that they could not


possibly do it. The cargoes were returned because they were obscene. That sort of thing is happening today.
Had the men handled these cargoes, what facilities were there? These men's clothes would not have had to be washed but fumigated. If anyone wants to challenge what I say, the evidence is in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour. There is no need for anyone to embellish the scene. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to see it. I merely mention it as part of the history of dockland conditions since 1889.
In 1929 when I went to the docks first, decasualisation was a pipe dream. Even to talk about it was a pipe dream, as was the possibility of a pension scheme. But, by 1945, due to the efforts of Ernest Bevin and of others whose names should be mentioned, the dream was reality. I have mentioned my father's name. He was one of the pioneers. Another name that certainly should be mentioned whenever decasualisation is spoken about is that of John Donovan, of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Their efforts have improved conditions to a great extent. There is an improved degree of dignity and some of the inequalities have been got rid of.
I have been told that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said something about opportunities. I suppose he meant the lad with the hook in his belt becoming one of the managerial class. I had a fairly reasonable I.Q. when I went to the docks. There are thousands of men like myself who never got any opportunity of becoming any better than they were or of doing anything or of taking any part in management in a business with which hey were concerned.
Now we are getting the excuses. We are told that it will all be better tomorrow. But there has been plenty of time for employers and port authorities to provide proper opportunities for careers for people like myself, with some ability, and it is no use telling us now that tomorrow things will be different. I do not accept that. There was no chance even for the best men and today there is Mill no chance even for the best men on the Liverpool Docks or in any other dockside system.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the practice in some ports whereby promotion opportunities are denied to a person if he is not classified as a No. I docker, although the only way to be so classified is not to pass examinations but to be the son of a docker?

Mr. Mahon: I have heard a lot about that. It is a lot of ancient history.

Mr. Taylor: No. Last month.

Mr. Mahon: It is a rather poor intervention. From the point of view I have been developing, it is no excuse in any shape or form.
Another important point in discussing good relations in the docks concerns welfare amenities. There has been a striking improvement in the men themselves because housing has improved. In my constituency, facilities which might have been needed some years ago because of the slums in dockland are no longer needed because we have improved the social conditions of people in dockland itself. There has been a striking improvement also in the educational opportunities for dockers' children and in the cultural standards of the dockers. All these have to be matched, and quickly, by industrial advance. The improvement in the standard and bearing of the dockland family and in its educational and cultural standards makes it harder to find leaders in dockland because the opportunities outside it are better.
In the days to which I have been referring, I suppose that the unemployment rate was 7, 8, or 9 per cent. The Board of Trade has done a great deal to help Merseyside, which is a development area, where the unemployment rate is now down to 2.4 per cent. But that means that it becomes harder and harder to recruit the right kind of labour for the docks without a substantial and immediate improvement in conditions, hours and wages.
I do not want to detract at all from the efforts of those who have endeavoured over the years to make an improvement, but over and over again the Devlin Report refers to what it describes as wreckers. This is something which can be over-emphasised or under-emphasised. One of the tragedies of some people on the docks today is that they do not know


just how far we have come and how much people have suffered to achieve what we have. I can understand a degree of impatience, but it would be a bigger tragedy not to realise just how far it is possible to advance if we get proper co-operation among Government, Opposition, employers and employed.
Vast technical improvements are taking place on the docks and technical improvements are available to everyone, but what we want is an improvement in human relationships. I have never met anyone, a Minister of Labour, trade union official, or employer, who had a magic wand for the problems of the docks. These problems are intransigent.
However, to give some hope, I learned only recently from the Ministry responsible that my own dockside constituency after the war was written off as an entity, not only as a port, but as a town. Twenty-five years later the same Ministry described it as a social miracle. If we can make tremendous improvements such as we have made in the social, cultural, economic and education scenes, surely it is possible with the right sort of mind and the right sort of application to get decent conditions and decent standing for the men who work on Liverpool docks.
I say categorically that conditions are bad; they are horrible. Wages are too low and hours are too long. The conditions are the worst in the country. Why in these days should a man have to leave his home at 7 o'clock in the morning and for four days work until 8 o'clock at night and for one day until 5 o'clock and also to work weekends in order to get a reasonable wage? In these days when we are discussing a 40-hour week at sea, why should it not be possible for a man to earn his living on the docks in 40 hours instead of the astronomical number he is now asked to work?
People are not born dockers and they do not suddenly become dockers. In my hand I hold the history of maritime England, the history of the docker. It is the story of a man who for 50 years worked intermittently on the docks and at sea. I shall not reveal his name, of course. He was born in 1886, and after working for 50 years he finished up watching in a shed in Liverpool, working 12 hours a day and seven days a week for ls. 10d. an hour. For him there has been no pension

or reward from the employers whom hon. Members opposite have been defending. I can pile the seabooks of my own family three feet high, but not a paltry penny ever came in pension from an employer over all those years, not a paltry penny from a dock employer or from a shipowner in all those long years, and I am going back to 1886. Let hon. Members think of the penury of people who are today given £100 and a small weekly pension at the age of 76 or more, as some form of reward.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not controvert a word the hon. Gentleman is saying, but from a desire for information I ask why it is that last year 881 dockers' sons were recruited to the probationary register out of a total recruitment of 3,000. That sounds as though the career has its attractions.

Mr. Mahon: The career can have its attractions. I am saying what the position has been and what it now is. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling me that I am wrong when I say that today after 50 years' working at sea and on the docks, £100 plus 10s. a week pension is a paltry reward? What do we think men are? Do hon. Members opposite ask us to continue with a situation in which that is the sort of reward for a man who works all his life in an industry of that sort with conditions of that sort? Do they ask us to trust the people who created conditions of that sort on the docks? If I thought for a solitary moment that the employers were capable and would honestly implement what has been suggested today, I would not be advocating a change and there would be no need for me to do so. I would not ask for a change if the men were being treated with dignity and could retire in dignity. But that has never been the case and, in the name of the people among whom I was born and reared, I demand a change, and the Bill is not good enough.
It is not often that I adopt this attitude to my own Front Bench, but I hope that my remarks will be conveyed to those responsible. I shall not sell my own flesh and blood down the river by not saying what I ought to say. I have been waiting for a long time to say some of these things and many people have suffered in the meantime. For the sake of the many whose names appear on war memorials


all over the country, for their sons and for the future we must never miss an opportunity to express ourselves on these matters.
On page 80 the Devlin Report says:
The negotiations for decasualisation in Liverpool were dominated by two factors. The first was the factor of inter-union dissension …
We know that that is only too true. The Report added:
The second was the personality of Mr. P. J. O'Hare, who was the district secretary of the T. — G. for twelve years until his death in September 1964. Mr. O'Hare was a dedicated trade unionist, a man of great force of character, upright and honourable in his ways, but rather autocratic in manner arid himself a focus of dissension. His failure to woo his constituents led to the belief that he was making himself a spokesman for authority rather than a representative of the workpeople.
That paragraph should have ceased when it said that this man was
a dedicated trade unionist, a man of great force of character, upright and honourable in his ways
and the rest should be scrubbed from the record. What it means in Liverpool dock language is that he was a boss's man. I knew Mr. O'Hare. It is all right talking about wreckers, Trotskyists, and Communist influence on the docks, but I have said in this House that I have never been behind the eight ball in my life when I have been fighting Communism, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that this is true. I have been in the van all the time against Communist intrigue and Trotskyite activities, and if that is true about me it s ten times more true about Mr. O'Hare, he man referred to in the Devlin Report. We are doing him less than justice when we allow that to go unnoticed.
It is all right talking about a man when one is out of the wood and out of difficulty, but he had to contend with all sorts of difficulties and he contended with them honourably and manfully. I am glad that I have had the opportunity of clearing what I think is a slur on the name of an excellent trade unionist.
There are now 14 employers in Liverpool. I remember when we had hundreds of employers in Liverpool and some of them had only a telephone. They never owned a truck, but they were in business. They had nothing except access to labour, and they used that. These are the people who are going out

of the scheme. If the number of employers can be reduced to 14 in the massive port of Liverpool, why should it be 14? It should be one employer at this stage in the port of Liverpool—an estuarial employer.
I have very great great support, because for the first time in its history that very fine body, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which knows its business inside out and is one of the finest port authorities in the country, has come into the porter and stevedoring business. It can see the writing on the wall and it will become, first, the one employer and, in a few years, a nationalined industry. I know that one cannot wave a magic wand in this sort of matter, but it is an advance to get the number of employers down to 14. It will be a bigger advance to get it down to one, and it will be a greater advance when we nationalise this industry.
I support what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said about dock organisation. I have done a great deal in the Port of Liverpool to supply land and space for container services and to plan better the town in which I live, so that the Docks Board, the employers and the dockers have enough space in which to work. I also tried as hard as I could to co-operate in getting traffic on the move, which is the main thing, on inadequate roads. No one side in House has a vested interest; we are all interested in the quick turn-round of ships. I have been looking into the quick turn-round of ships for years, and have been working for it in the country's best interests, and in the interests of the dockers and everyone concerned. We all want to see it, and vast amounts of capital investment are being spent on dock quays and new dock systems. We cannot allow them to be unused and to have these massive ships staying there longer than they should be. We all want to see them moved round in the interests of the country and its economy as quickly as possible, but we shall not do it without discipline.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned in as many words, I believe, without using the actual phrase, restrictive practices. Of course there are restrictive practices, and of course they have to go. We cannot justify them now any more than we could some days ago or some years ago. I


should be an industrial coward if I did not mention one in Liverpool, called the "welt", which is a hang-over, as has been said, from the days of the depression.
But there are other reasons for the welt which this House should know. It is, under certain conditions, a legitimate practice. For instance, it is a legitimate practice when people are working the sort of cargo that I described before, the cargo from the Middle East. One could not expect them to work for more than about an hour. This is an important thing and when it goes out of this House it will be more important than it sounds at the moment. If a man is working in a refrigeration ship, he can work down below for only one hour and must then come up for an hour in the interests of his health.
People outside who talk about the welt must try to understand that it is not all malpractice, although some of it is. The dockers have brought some of these systems into operation, and quite rightly so, just as bosses have brought things into operation, for their own protection and for the protection of their wives and familities. The dockers do not go down to the docks because they like it. They go there to earn bread and butter for their wives and children, and they have been faced for a long time with wrong-doing by employers. They have had to take what might be called in the Army "evasive action".
I say categorically that if we get improved legislation like this and better legislation than this, there is no reason why these malpractices should not cease. We cannot as a nation afford to keep them. I hope that from the speeches in this House the relationships that can come through people explaining to one another what the position is, and what it should be, there will be a new deal in dockland. I hope that I am not just using a cliché, because a complete new deal is needed. The men need to be paid properly and their conditions and their dignity must be upheld.
We talk glibly about dignity and we sometimes talk glibly about social justice. Dockers have never had social justice throughout their history. I hope that one day in the history of this Government they will achieve it.

7.29 p.m.

Sir Edward Brown: Before I turn to the subject of the Bill, I should like to say to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) that on memorials, in books and in churches throughout the country there can be found the names of families from both sides of this House and, beyond this House, of the country as a whole. Therefore, I do not leave it to the dockers to be signally distinguished in this respect.
Strangely enough, I spent a great number of years—38 of them—in the trade union movement. Therefore, I cannot be said to be speaking for the employers on this side of the House. Indeed, most of my occupation has been particularly interested in this field of affairs. When the Bill was put before us today, I thought that it would be given a warm and great welcome, but the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has damped any chances of the Bill being a success because she has used terms to suggest that the Government, through the Labour Party election manifesto, intend at some unspecified time to carry out nationalisation.
In that event, why have the Bill? If it passes through its stages in this House, what effect will it have? It will have the opposite effect from that which hon. Members, on both sides, have been speaking about today. It was hoped that the Bill would once more introduce good relationship in the ports between employers and employees. It will do nothing of this.
I am certain that if the hon. Lady were to stop to think about it for a moment she would conclude that I am quite right in saying that the effect of the Bill, together with her statement on nationalisation, will be stagnation once more in dockland, not only because the employers will not want to invest their money in re-equipping the industry, but because the dockers, quite naturally, following the hon. Lady's statement, will resist any activity for negotiation by the employers until such time as the Labour Party, through the Government, introduce the new nationalisation Bill. Therefore, all that we are doing in this House today is considering a Bill which will


foment once again the relationships in the docks.
I am puzzled about what the effect will be when the dockers seemingly get the gist of the Bill. I spent a weekend on it, and it was difficult to absorb. I wanted an interpretation. I had to read both the Devlin and Rochdale Reports to get an idea of conditions in the industry.
In spite of what the hon. Member for Bootle said about going back over the years and the relationships, both industrially and from the viewpoint of productivity—and we can be quite clear that we have advanced along those roads—if I were to give a copy of the Bill to a docker tonight, he would ask, "What does all that mean?" I hope that an explanatory jocument, in simple language, will be ssued to explain what the Bill means.
I refer once again to the hon. Lady's statement about compensation for takeover. Paragraph 37 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states that
the Minister of Transport may out of votes make loans to licensing authorities to enable them to make compensation payments to employers not granted licences and to meet incidental expenses.
It is difficult to predict the amount of loans. The hon. Lady suggested that they could amount to £5 million. If this amount of money is to be raised, taken in conjunction with the hon. Lady's statement on nationalisation, nobody will want to opt into this dock affair. Surely, fewer and fewer people will take responsibility. We shall see laisser-faire in the docks, which will create bad conditions and, finally, what will threaten to overtake us will be a massive strike in the docks.
I came to the House this afternoon to welcome the Bill. Now, however, when the hon. Lady has made her statement that for reasons of doctrinaire policy the Labour Party will at a later stage nationalise the industry, I would much sooner, in the interests of the country, cast my vote against the Bill because of the effect that it will have in creating bad conditions within the industry until such time as her right hon. Friend introduces his nationalisation Bill. The most honourable thing would be for the Minister of Labour to tell us as soon as possible the date when the Government intend to nationalise the docks.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown), who seems to typify the Opposition attitude that they delight in being so doctrinaire about being undoctrinaire. Here we have a Bill which, for all its defects, which have been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides, is a tremendous step forward, at least in the actual physical working conditions of the docker. I use the word "physical" in relation to amenities, baths and wash houses, canteens, and all the other things which can make for civilised employment, which the dockers do not have at present.
I was very impressed with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). I spent my early years in his constituency. My parents lived there and I know of the respect, admiration and, indeed, the love with which my hon. Friend and his family, and, in particular, his father, are thought of in the town of Bootle. My hon. Friend was doing a service to his father, to past generations and to the new generation of dockers when he made his speech this evening.
I was extremely interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). The right hon. Gentleman made a tremendous point about the period of three years or seven years, and then my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that eventually the Government would nationalise the docks. The right hon. Gentleman asked what hope there was for management and what employment or career structures there would be. But what has there ever been in the past for anyone in the dock industry unless his dad happened to be a master stevedore? People have never had any chance of promotion from the dock, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has pointed out.
If one looks at the history of dockland —indeed, the history of my own port, which, until recently, has been bedevilled by alleged unofficial strikes—one sees that the root of these strikes is not the fault of the men, but of the management for being prepared to tolerate poor conditions, to tolerate inter-union disputes, to shelter behind the umbrella of the


Dock Labour Board and, in so doing, failing to face their problems.
In my own town, we have had unofficial strikes since the beginning of the year. Men took a day off. The union was forced to accept that the men had a case. They sent a special offer to negotiate. The piece rates that were being paid on cargoes and cargo rates were increased continuously all along the line. The management never objected. They dare not do so, because they have been on a good thing in the past but they had refused to face their responsibilities. Half of the difficulties that have existed in dockland would not have arisen if these people, who suddenly want a second chance and want to see new vistas spread before them, had taken the opportunity which they had to improve the conditions of the men.
In the long history that we have been given of the docks today, mention has been made of the great heroes in the struggle to improve the conditions of the docker, of Ernest Bevin and others. I think, however, that in the present Dock Labour Scheme we have one of the main causes of trouble in the docks. This is a regrettable thing to say, because when the scheme was introduced it was revolutionary. It was intended to give the docker the dignity and status that he wanted. The representatives of the employers and of the union were to have sat down under a neutral chairman to work out the problems of the dock, the size of the register, what the rate would be and disciplining the docker if he acted in an unruly way.
The way that it has worked out, however, has been that the discipline and authority of the trade union official has been undermined, because he sits on the Dock Labour Board, which also disciplines his own members. Therefore, he is regarded either as being the boss's man, in the pay of the employers, or as a man who has no authority at all.
On the other hand, there is the situation where the employers have hidden behind the Dock Labour Board, because that was the official employer of labour and have failed to carry out schemes to improve conditions. In many instances, the Dock Labour Board is held in complete contempt by dockers for failing to

carry out the spirit of the 1948 arrangement.
I hope that when we have just one employer, the harbour authority, we will get rid of many of these difficulties. I am fortunate in that in my city the docks are owned by the British Transport Commission. The appliances are owned by the Commission, but the men are engaged to work by private stevedores. It will be very difficult to sell the Bill to the men.
Let us consider the type of men we have working in the docks. I use my port as an example, for others will vary. First and foremost, there is the National Dock Labour Board, having among its registered labour shipping clerks, foremen, riggers, deckmen, tally men, labourers, forwarders, samplers, fork truck drivers, drivers, lightermen, warehousemen and the rest. Then there is British Transport Dock Board labour, which includes shore crane drivers, mobile crane drivers, wagon shunters, porters and maintenance men. Many of these are referred to in the Bill as "dock workers". However, many of them have particular skills and abilities needing to be differentiated from the general term of dock worker.
Looking at what these people do it will be found that the shipping clerk is in full charge of the loading and discharging of the ship, using the ship's manifest in conjunction with the ship's officers. The foreman is in charge of supervising the gang, delivering of the labour records, and carrying out necessary work under the direction of the foreman, and so on, down through the various jobs entailed in discharging the ship. All of this is done by people already employed by nationalised undertakings. The only person who is not so employed is the independent stevedore, who has contacted the Dock Labour Board and asked for so many men to unload a ship.
Let us consider an example from a recent publication put out by what might be termed wreckers. Take the ship as it enters a dock and is berthed by the port authority employees. The ship's agent has passed on the work of stevedoring to a firm of local stevedores who engage a foreman. One day he may be a labourer and another day a foreman. He engages men from the reserve pool of the Dock Labour Board. These men are directed


to work in a particular hold and after the work has started they continue without further supervision. The paper-work is being done by a shipping clerk, who is a registered dock worker and who is also responsible for all of the transport arrangements. Each gang has a registered tally man, who makes details of the discharge which he then passes to the shipping clerk at the end of the day.
The ship is unloaded and the cargo goes either by B.R.S. or British Railways. This is a scheme worked entirely by people employed by one employer, except for the independent stevedore who is nothing more than a labour contractor. People in the docks feel that they have art impossible system of working. They may be drawing big money one day and "dinting" the next. They may be in the unreserved pool and go home with their faces scratched through having to hold up their books to try to get employment. We can get rid of this, of the independent stevedore, and we can improve the management prospects and the career structure by a simple amendment to the Bill.
Having criticised the Bill I must say that it represents a tremendous step forward for dockers in their actual physical conditions of work and it is something upon which the Minister and the hon. Lady are to be congratulated. There is one point which does not concern the working of the docker, and that is the general part of the Bill dealing with harbour authorities and the Amendment made to the 1964 Harbour Act.
Estuarial authorities were established under the Act. These authorities were to have advisory committees. In one draft scheme, which I have seen, the membership of the committee consists of 14 people. There are two representatives of local authorities, two of work people, approved by the Minister and 10 of employers and users of the port. If one wants the correct degree of co-operation, albeit only on an advisory committee, then there must be more worker representation. In this particular authority, if one merely took the representation of the two main unions concerned in the dock one would not be dealing with half of the workmen or of their representatives.
In particular, it seems foolish that in so many of our estuaries which are difficult to navigate one does not have direct

pilot representation on estuarial authorities and upon the advisory boards. Instead, this has to come by some devious means through Trinity House or a conservancy board, or in some other way. Above all, these river pilots are the people who know the difficulty of getting ships in, and this is something which cannot be related by second-hand information, by a person who is not actively engaged in the job.
Therefore, while supporting the general tenor of the Bill, I would urge the Minister to think again about whether we could not do away with the whole system of licensing port employers and have only one employer. I would finally urge that when authorities are set up there is adequate direct representation of all people employed in the industry so that they are in a position to influence decisions.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: One of the most noteworthy speeches in this debate was that made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) in which he gave us an historical background to the docks. For the sake of the record I will say that he objected to an interjection of mine when he was talking about the lack of promotion opportunities for dockers. I cited to him a case of a friend of mine living only five minutes away from me in Glasgow, who is a docker and whose employers are most anxious to promote him to a supervisory job. They are prevented from doing so simply because he is not a No. 1 docker and a man can become one only if his father was a docker before him. To this extent the question of promotion opportunities is not simply a matter of what the employer chooses to do.
The other point which the hon. Gentleman was making with some force was the need for better conditions and higher wages in the docks, particularly in Liverpool. He made a fleeting reference to the practice of welting mentioned in the Devlin Report, whereby one has an hour on and one hour off, this continuing into overtime as well as the normal hours. It will be generally accepted by everyone with experience of working or having to do with the docks that if we are to get rid of this practice of general welting, as opposed to the


specific cases of cargoes which are inconvenient or involve special difficulties, then in Liverpool, and elsewhere, the wages and conditions must be better. The one thing which has been noticeable during the debate has been that some people appear to be expecting far too much from this Bill. This is a very timid and anaemic Bill, which suggests very few things which ought to be done, and in no way gets to the fundamental problems facing the dockers.
Take the major recommendation, the question of licensing. It was suggested that this was something new which would involve a new structural framework in the docks in which a large number of employers would become a small number of tough, hard, efficient employers. What is the position? In Glasgow, from where I come, we have a licensing system which has been in operation for many years. It is operated by the port authority in exactly the same way that the Bill suggests. The only essential difference is that in Glasgow the licences are reviewed annually, whereas in the Bill it is proposed that they should be reviewed at intervals of not less than five years and not more than seven years. To this extent, this is not a major departure.
But even if this happens in other ports, will it be a major structural change? In Glasgow we have 14 firms. It is suggested that we should have five. But the five major firms in Glasgow already handle more than 85 per cent. of the cargo. Therefore, this will not be a major structural alteration, but will merely eliminate the number of small employers which exist. There is no reason for saying that the small firms, those which have only a few people working for them, are any more inefficient than the larger firms. In fact, sometimes the reverse is the case.
It is a little unfortunate that the Bill proposes that the port authority will be the licensing auhority, because this could involve difficulties in particular ports. It will not involve any major difficulty in Glasgow. But take the case of Grangemouth, another port in Scotland. There, the British Transport Holding Company has recently bought the largest firm of Stevedores. The port authority is already a small employer, and it will be

in the position of granting licences when it is one of the constituent firms and, indeed, a large employer of labour.
There is also the danger of this system of licensing preventing the introduction of new techniques. How difficult it will be for the Minister of Transport to grant an application which has been refused by the licensing authority when she finds that every person working in the docks has said that he does not want the person concerned to be granted a licence. If there is unanimity because the new firm will introduce new techniques and methods, how can we expect the Minister of Transport to overturn the decision and say, "This new firm must be given a licence"?
I am amazed by some of the conditions which the Minister and the port authority are meant to take into account when considering whether a licence should be granted. I would refer the Minister to Clause 4(3,a), which provides that in considering whether someone should be granted a licence the Minister should take into account whether the firm
exercises or is likely to exercise proper supervision over the dock workers employed by it.
Would the Minister consider that any firm in Liverpool or indeed in Glasgow had been operating proper supervision over the dock workers when there is in Liverpool a system of welting and in Glasgow a system of spelling? Is it proper supervision of workers in the docks if there is a system of welting or spelling, with one hour or two hours off and then one hour on, with half of the dock labour force working? It would be very difficult for any Minister or port authority to decide that a licence should be granted on the basis of that subsection or, indeed, on the basis of many other subsections.
Containerisation—this wonderful new development—is certainly not too new in Scotland. Are we to believe that if a new firm introduced new techniques of this sort the other employers would not object or that the port authority might say that it should not have a licence? This could a way in which new techniques could be held back.
The part of the Bill which interests me most is Part III which relates to modernisation. Clause 35 provides that port


authorities can provide depots for containers. As I have said, containerisation is nothing new in Glasgow. For some time, the Burns Laird and Coast Line vessels have been taking containers to Belfast, but we have not made a great deal of progress with ocean-going liners. The first ocean-going liner left Scotland with containers on 7th May. That was the s.s. "Fairland", an American Flag Line vessel, taking whisky to America from Grangemouth. Whisky is one of the major exports from Scotland. There is great potential in containerisation. I asked for details about the cargo-handling arrangements of this first ocean-going vessel using containers in Scotland. I was told that it discharged 35 containers and loaded seven containers in a period of four hours. This was equivalent to a cargo of 800 tons. With normal conventional methods, this would have taken more than two days. This gives some idea of the saving which can be effected if containers are used.
It is very regrettable that the Minister started the debate by saying that no matter how successful the Bill is—and the powers in it are by no means too great—the Government are going ahead with nationalisation proposals. What incentive is this for employers to try new methods and to invest in new plant and machinery? Indeed, what incentive is there for the unions to agree to the new working arrangements which could well salve many of the long-term problems? I believe that by bringing forward this Bill and at the same time saying that they are pressing ahead with nationalisation the Government have sabotaged any possibility of making the progress which we want to make through the Bill.
There is also the question of investment. The steel industry is finding it very difficult to attract the capital it needs to go ahead with new investment schemes. There is only one reason for this. It is not because it is not a viable industry or because it is not profitable, but simply because it is difficult to get long-term capital investment if the industry is subjected to the threat of imminent nationalisation. There will be exactly the same problem in the docks because of the threat of imminent nationalisation. It will be very difficult to get long-term capital, and this will upset many of the proposals in the Bill.
I should like to make one further Scottish point. It has been suggested by some of my hon. Friends that we do not have consistency in Government policy, that even though it was said in the Labour Party manifesto that the Government would nationalise the docks, we should not, on the basis of their record, believe that they would necessarily do so. My complaint is not on inconsistency but on co-ordination. Many of us were very alarmed to read in the Rochdale Report that the Committee saw no immediate need for major port developments on the Clyde, where there is one of Scotland's two major ports. The Rochdale Committee said that there was not great scope for new investment in Glasgow.
We have the Port of Leith where much new development is expected. It will be extremely difficult for Leith to get the money it requires for its new development because of this threat of nationalisation. But, more important, we should appreciate that this is the only area in the whole of Scotland which is not a development district under the new arrangements. The whole of Scotland, except Edinburgh and Leith, is now classified as a development district. Precisely how do the Government expect Leith to go ahead with its new plans, which are extremely relevant if we are thinking of going into the Common Market, or to accept that there is coordination in Government policy when a major new development which is desperately needed is sabotaged, on the one hand, by Government policy, and, on the other, by a Government Measure on investment allowances and development districts?
Another point worthy of mention is welfare facilities. There has been a great deal of complaint about action which employers should have taken but have not taken. Looking round the Scottish ports, the welfare facilities in Glasgow are not good. No one would believe that they were acceptable in modern times. On the other hand, they are very good indeed in Grangemouth. It is very strange, looking from one port to another, to see how they can vary a great deal.
But we must consider that one major employer in the docks is the National


Dock Labour Board, and it has certainly not taken any initiative in improving conditions generally. We certainly want better conditions and I am certain they will come, and one thing which the Minister might possibly consider, something I think most important, is the omission, when we are talking in terms of facilities and conditions, that even with the Dock Labour Scheme and even with this new Bill, there is no proposal at all that employers should have an occupational pension scheme for people who work in the docks. This is something which certainly ought to be given attention and I hope that, even if there is no provision in the Bill, it does not necessarily mean that the Minister will not say she hopes that under the new arrangements there will be an occupational pension scheme.
A final word on the question of labour relations. A great deal has been said about decasualisation and how this in itself might improve labour relations in the docks. I very much doubt this. Decasualisation in itself has not been warmly welcomed by every single person who works in the docks. I believe that recently in Grangemouth there was a majority of six to four against decasualisation, and certainly in Glasgow there is no question of unanimously welcoming this new feature. It is welcomed by some—particularly by the employers, I feel, because it will ensure a quicker turn-round of ships if work is more evenly spread—if we do not have a situation where these dockers are taking the best jobs and other more difficult jobs are handled by other workers.
One thing I should like to say about Glasgow, which I think is far more relevant to the question of good relations than the simple question of decasualisation, is the importance of union organisation. In the West of Scotland we have only one union, that is, the Scottish Transport and General Workers' Union. I would not certainly say that it is the answer to everyone's problems, but at least we have a proper union control in the docks of Glasgow, whereas in other places it is far otherwise and unions have lost control of their own members.
There may be several reasons for that. First of all, the Scottish Transport and General Workers' Union is a small union

with only about 2,000 Scottish dockers under its control, and, therefore, the relationship is essentially personal. In addition, there is one full-time official for every 350 dockers who actually work in the Glasgow port, whereas I believe that the Transport and General Workers' Union in some places has only one full-time official for more than 1,000 workers. In fact, our labour relations in Glasgow and the rest of Scotland have been particularly good. For example, in Grangemouth we have lost only 72 working hours since 1926 in strikes in that dock. It is a very good record that we have lost only 72 hours since 1926, which is less than two hours per year for the whole of the period in that port.
However, my fear is that, while we have these good labour relations in Glasgow and Grangemouth and elsewhere, there has been to some extent a conspiracy of silence on the part of unions and employers—both sides of industry—which have not brought forward to the Devlin Committee, have not, in fact, generally admitted, some of the difficulties and problems which exist. The questions of spelling and of welting have been mentioned in Liverpool and Glasgow. Yet, for example, on the question of spelling, where we certainly had the maximum use out of our labour, it was interesting to note that this point was not brought to the Devlin Committee's attention by Glasgow employers. I believe that it was brought to its attention by the trade union side. It would certainly appear to give the impression that there has been a conspiracy of silence about some of these practices, and there are many others I could mention—for instance, the question of promotional opportunities. This is not something which has suddenly happened in history, but something which is happening in Glasgow.
It is interesting to note that in this scheme there has been no request by the employers for new working arrangements, or is it that the scheme will go forward and working arrangements will be talked about later? To that extent I do not think that we should expect that decasualisation itself is going to give the answer to the fundamental labour relations problem in some of the docks. Nor should we assume that, if nothing is done, either the trade unions or the


employers themselves are going to do something about it. The ports themselves are in a certain monopoly position; there is nowhere else for ships to go except to the docks; and to that extent there is no real incentive to the employers or the unions to offset what can be done about practices basically inefficient and against the national interest and which can be paid for in costs.
To that extent I think we should not expect too much from the Bill. I feel that in some ways we are expecting too much from it. It will certainly be no substitute for real solutions to these real practical problems.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I should like to give a qualified welcome to the Bill. I believe it contains some very workmanlike pieces of work which I believe can meet part of the problem till such time as the Government are able to bring forward their further proposals. I refer here mainly to the provisions for welfare and the reduction in the cumber of employers, which were the main recommendations of the Devlin Report.
I should like to ask for clarification from the Front Bench on the question of training. Welfare conditions, without being related to training and retraining, in my view, would be a serious mistake. It is my view, based on some evidence, that this aspect of a docker's work is unsatisfactorily neglected, and that unless proper standards of training and retraining for older dockers are implemented there will be no reduction in the high rates of industrial injury in this very arduous and dirty industry. As I say, I think the welfare provisions of the Bill go to the heart of the matter, and I should like some further clarification about the training aspects.
I should also like to know the future relationship of the National Dock Labour Board. I am aware that the Board itself varies its relationships with its dock workers from one port to another, and I think I can say this much about the Port of London, that there is a kind of love-hate relationship between the dock workers and the Dock Labour Board. It is trusted in a sort of very qualified way. If we are going to make very fundamental and serious alterations in the employer-

employee relationship I should very much like to know exactly how the National Dock Labour Board will fit in, because I believe the Board can still find a solution to the docks problem.
In its constitution it provides opportunity for trade unions to be represented on the highest councils of that body. As has been reiterated by my hon. Friends, it does, of course, lead to a situation where the trade union leader, by sitting on the Board, is isolated from the people he represents, but I still think that it is an experiment worth proceeding with, and I hope that this side of the Dock Labour Board scheme will be strengthened. Part of the problem is that the trade union leader sitting on the Board and carrying out essentially a managerial and disciplinary function naturally finds himself alienated from his fellow workers. Perhaps some other method could be evolved of rotation on the Board of dockers actually working on the job, as opposed to full-time trade union officials, who become virtually isolated from the men on the job.
The bitterness which is evident in the dock industry means that, if there is to be any solution, the answers themselves must be exceptional and almost superhuman. We have heard many eloquent testimonies from hon. Members on this side who have themselves worked in the docks. They have given their views and have indicated the extent of the bitterness which exists in our docks today. It will be very difficult to overcome that bitterness, and it will not necessarily be overcome simply by a change of ownership. If we reduce the number of employers to one, that act alone will not remove the deep-felt grievances. Something much more fundamental needs to be done, and we must look more to the future.
Quite rightly, today's debate has referred to the past, and I think that it will compare with the great debates in the inter-war period on the coal mining industry, such has been the wealth of experience and emotion that we have heard today. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to look ahead now, and that is why I welcome the Bill. If a new start can be given, if the Government are tough and uncompromising and they are able to satisfy workers in the industry that by nationalising it a new opportunity


will be opened, a great deal will have been done. Before they do that, they must lay down conditions themselves, because one thing is certain, and it is that the workings of the docks cannot be allowed to continue as at present.
If we are to have changes, we must make sure that conditions about protective or restrictive practices are properly scrutinised and that some of them are given up as a result of changes introducted by the Government. Here again, a great opportunity exists for a hard bargain to be struck. That means taking on vested interest. Apart from the hon. Gentlemen opposite who will fight the Bill on the grounds of the reduction in the number of employers, there will be many other vested interests which will have to be faced. I refer to the unofficial elements that exist in London.
I have received many letters from dock workers, themselves active, militant trade unionists, who are deeply worried about the unofficial element that exists in London. It is one of the easiest things in dockland to emerge as an unofficial leader. It fulfils a particular kind of desire to a certain type of person. They are able to exercise power without responsibility and, very often, they exercise it with devastating effect on the dock industry.
If the Government make structural alterations in the public ownership of the docks, at the same time they must issue a warning to unofficial elements that their days are numbered and that their activities must cease forthwith. It would be disastrous if all these changes came about and we were left in the same position as we find ourselves in today.
Whilst welcoming many provisions in the Docks and Harbours Bill, I, too, believe that more fundamental changes must be made. If the Government are tough and resolute, I am sure that they will get the backing of the dock workers.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I move from London to Scotland. For that reason, I am particularly surprised that, throughout the debate, which has the greatest implications for Scottish ports, we have not had a Scottish Minister here to listen

to what has been said. I daresay they are all away, hanging their heads in shame, for the treatment of the Port of Leith.
Leith is the only port in Scotland out-with a development area, and no port is more prepared and keen to improve its facilities than Leith. Numerous large industrial concerns wish to join in the projects in the port of Leith, but, because of its exclusion from the development area, they are not going ahead. I hope that the Minister will convey to his hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the concern of the House at Leith's shabby treatment.
I was interested to hear the clear and concise remarks of the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary earlier, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), I was quite astonished at her statement about the nationalisation of the docks in the future. That will cause chronic worry among people interested in the development of the docks if they have no idea when nationalisation is likely to take place. The sooner that the Minister is able to assure the House about a proper time scale, the better. It is an even greater pity since the Devlin Report says so much which is good sound common sense, a great deal of which has been ruined by the hon. Lady's statement and the uncertainty which it will cause.
Part I of the Bill allows for the reduction in the number of employers and encourages that reduction and the licensing of employers. That is something which we all welcome. But there are certain dangers, and some of them have not been fully appreciated in all quarters. Monopolisation may well bring about restrictions and inflexibility which will hinder the development in Part III of the Bill that we feel is so important. The very serious omission of any form of charges that will be levied by the stevedores and their employers is a most important one.
I want to turn for a few moments to Scotland, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, in Leith, and particularly in Glasgow, there have been very important strides towards a reduction by voluntary effort, which, I am sure all hon. Members will agree, is the correct


way to do it. We disagree strongly that the licensing authority, in many cases, should also be the competing operating authority. I know that the hon. Lady argued that at some length under Schedule 1, but it is a fact that it is to be so in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Grangemouth and Leith, and Scottish opinion is against that unfair competition.
My own view and that of a number of my hon. Friend is not in accord with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. It should be an annual licence, looked at annually, and not one for a relatively long period, because that way may well weigh against the possibility of new firms coming in and tendering for these opportunities.
The most important part of the Bill is Part III, where the modernisation of harbour facilities is dealt with. Naturally, in Scotland, there is great interest and excitement at the moves towards containerisation which has taken place in recent weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said, this has been clone with coastal trade for some time, but only recently the first ocean-going containerised ship left the Port of Grangemouth with two cargoes of whisky which were loaded in four hours, whereas normally this takes about two days.
This is a significant step forward, and the same ship on its previous voyage loaded 1,100 tons at Rotterdam in five hours, compared with its normal loading period of three days. This is something of a break-through, and, in the Scottish whisky trade, in particular, will reduce costs very considerably in our export markets, but we must look seriously at the position of Customs and bring them into the Bill if possible.
Scotland has an exceptionally good record from the point of view of industrial disputes in her docks and harbours, and I think it well worth saying again that since 1926 Grangemouth has had only 72 hours of strikes. This is due to the good relations which have been engendered through the disputes committee, which is able to give decisions on the spot. I think that anyone who is versed in trade unionism realises that a quick decision is likely to nip a strike in the bud.
I hope that this move towards the modernisation of our great ports will

encourage the smaller harbours around our coastline to modernise, too. I am thinking now of many small harbours, some of them fishing harbours, round the coasts of Scotland. This may well stimulate them to bring their harbours up to the high standard at which we are aiming for our national and large ports. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will go out of his way to give our remarkable labour record and the facilities available in Scotland all the publicity that he can in the future, and thereby encourage as many cargo vessels as possible to come to Scotland to use the facilities which exist there.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I intervene briefly in this debate because I think that this Bill is important for the country as a whole. I appreciate that it is not one on which there is great party controversy, but there are one or two points which I should like to probe and on which I hope that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some guidance.
The operation of the docks and harbours of this country is of tremendous importance not only for the reason which hits everybody's eyes at once, which is the quick and efficient export of goods which we manufacture, and the way in which they behave like a bottleneck, nearly everything that we export has to go through the docks, and, therefore, they play a vital part in our export drive, but the fact, which is often overlooked, that the efficient handling of imports through our docks of the raw materials which are the basis of our industry, is vitally important, otherwise the costs of raw materials rise unnecessarily.
There seem to be three things which we should ask of the Bill, and I should like to look at them and to judge the Bill on these merits. First, the dock and harbour environment and facilities. Secondly, whether the Bill will help to bring about a change in employee attitude. Thirdly—and there is no reason for this being this way round—whether it will help to bring about a change of employer attitude in the docks.
I have three questions to put to the Government in this context. The first relates to the environment of, and the


facilities in, the docks. Here I am talking not so much about the dock employer's equipment but about the docks themselves—wharfing facilities, layout, and things of that sort. Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done to bring about the modernisation of these things? I recognise that Part III of the Bill, particularly with its provisions for improvements in warehousing and things of this sort, is very important, but I am wondering about the provision of docks, the reshaping of docks, and the amalgamation of docks, because when one looks at many of our docks one gets an unfortunate impression of Victoriana. One gets the impression that the attitude is, "We were at the forefront of progress yesterday" rather than, "We are right at the forefront of progress today".
The question which comes to my mind is, what drives a dock authority forward today, whatever work it is involved in, to modernise its facilities? Is there anywhere a profit motive? Is there anywhere something which drives that authority forward to ensure that its dock is better, and more able to cope with the volume of traffic which comes through it than any other? In this context the need for change to cope with containerisation is of great importance, as is the development of "drive-on—drive-off" facilities.
I propose now to say a word or two on the subject of employee attitude. I have listened with great care and respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have close connections with the docks and dockers. I realise that it is very difficult for a Tory to talk on this subject without being liable to misrepresentation. Indeed, I know that the whole position in the docks represents a tender spot in the hearts of trade unionists, for the beginning of modern trade unionism among the unskilled, paradoxically perhaps, arose from the 1889 dock strike in London, the "tanner" an hour strike which Ben Tillett led with the Tea Operatives' Union which was itself so transformed during that period.
The whole theme and idea of the trade union movement has been to protect the weak against the strong and against employers, and building up after this there was the period of mass unemployment and the understandable search for ways

of making three men do the work that could be done by two. Having been a member of the T.G.W.U. for a number of years, I have a very real understanding of the reasons why men sought to spread work, and how, in the days of 1 million or 2 million unemployed, to save a man's job meant putting a man on the dole. Nothing rotted the hearts of men so much as weeks and months of enforced idleness, when, not for any lack of desire on their part but because there was no employment available, they remained unable to support their families and so to hold up their heads in society.
It is with an understanding of how those restrictive practices grew up that I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the Bill grasps a sufficient number of opportunities to break the restrictive practices which have been so glaringly outlined in the Devlin Report. I do not need to go over them; they are already familiar. The sum effect of them, however, is so important that they must be brought to the attention of the Minister, with the request that he should state clearly the way in which the Bill will affect them.
I shall not go over the pros and cons of the "continuity rule." There are things to be said on both sides. But, in the words of the Devlin Report, this practice leads to a waste of labour of between 5 and 6 per cent. Then there is "welting", or its Glasgow equivalent of "spelling", under which system 20 per cent. of the men's time is unproductive. This afternoon we have heard a defence of the practice of welting. It may be true that a man cannot work for more than about an hour in the refrigerated part of a ship, but this is no argument for extending that privilege—if I may so call it—over the whole operation of, say the Port of Liverpool. Then there is bad timekeeping. In London and Bristol this is said to cause a 10 per cent. loss in productivity.
Are the Government satisfied that the Bill is doing sufficient to seize the opportunities in front of them. How do they propose to take further steps to stamp out these practices which have Members on both sides of the House—and hon. Members opposite behind the Front Bench as well as on it—are anxious to have brought to an end?
When the Minister was introducing the Bill I noticed that she talked about a new Devlin Committee which has been set up, whose reports will deal with some of the difficulties concerning pricing, and the details of negotiations which are excessively difficult at present. Can the Minister give us any information whether a settlement is likely to fall within the scope of the Government's Prices and Incomes policy? Does he see any prospect of seizing the opportunites for reducing restrictive practices and increasing productivity, thereby making a real leap forward?
There is need for a modernising of the attitude of employers, especially in terms of modern equipment in the docks. I have two questions to ask on this point. First, do the Government consider that a three-year licence offers a sufficiently long period for any firm to be prepared to expend capital on modernising its equipment? Substantial sums of money are involved in laying out capital on modern equipment, and I wonder whether the prospect of a three-year licence, which is the minimum period laid down in the Bill, is sufficient to tempt an employer to spend very much money? I would have thought that a licence of that sort would tend to make an employer into a miner and cause him to try to drag out every penny from his concession, and not to plough it back, which should be the desire of the Government in this context.
Then there are the disastrous remarks made by the Minister in introducing Second Reading of the Bill, when she spoke of it as being virtually a temporary Measure until nationalisation could he brought in. Whether that was intended as feeding the hungry below the Gangway or a serious statement of Government policy, I do not know, but it filled me with alarm, not because of any dogma in respect of Conservative policy—not only because I, as a Conservative, dislike the idea of concentrating more power and wealth into the hands of the State—which is already becoming overpowerful—but because if, by this Measure, we ask employers to take these licences and to modernise the docks, we shall have no prospect of their success while we hold over them the threat that they will be nationalised in a year or

two. Who knows, may it not be those who take their first licence, and run it for about three years may then find that there is to be no renewal because the Government will then take them over by nationalising, piecemeal, the whole docks industry?
This seems to be a most serious weakness. It is serious for two reasons. The first is because it puts party dogma before the nation's needs. For reasons of party doctrine we shall find greater concentration in the hands of the State. But, secondly, and more especially, this at this time will frighten away the capital needed to modernise the docks industry and bring it right into the twentieth century.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: My first and very pleasant duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) on his maiden speech. I think that all of us who heard it will agree that it was a speech of considerable forcefulness, skill and intelligence. He spoke at some length about the problems of the Bristol area, and particularly about the new Port of Portbury, and I shall refer to that later. I hope that he will forgive me if I leave the detailed aspects of the Port of Bristol, about which he knows so much, and only say how much we all look forward to hearing him take part in debates in future and how high we know the standard of his performance will be.
There is no industry more bedevilled than the docks industry by the traditions of bad practice on both sides throughout the whole of its past. I do not think that either side can be excused for what has happened during the many years that our docks have been an important feature of our economy. There has certainly been no industry more inquired into. We have the Leggett Report in 1951, the Rochdale Report, the Devlin Report and many others before them. There is certainly no industry which is more complex. We have harbour authorities, the Dock Labour Board, the employers and their organisations, the shippers and their organisations, the two main unions, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the "blue" union and a host of other interwoven and complicated factors in this industry.
It has got into such a state that to find a solution now it is necessary for both sides of the House to sink our doctrinaire differences, at least for the time being, and to concentrate on implementing the Devlin Report. I pay tribute to the Report and to Lord Devlin for the good sense and compromise spirit which he brought to his task. He avoided both the extreme of this side of the House and the extreme of the other side. His reasoning is cogent and practical. I believe that it has been, and still is, entirely acceptable to both sides with, of course, the exception of some minor detailed points. If it is not irrelevant to say so, this piece of forceful writing and argument was very welcome and refreshing in a Government Report on which I personally congratulate him.
Now the Government have implemented, or threatened to implement, their election manifesto and to place the whole of the docks under public ownership in all aspects of their works. We all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. Upon its performance I congratulate her, if not on its substance. She said, we shall "rationalise" in the first instance and "nationalise" in the second. At that the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) rose from his seat and left the Chamber in high glee. We on this side of the House have guessed at the existence in the party opposite of two warring factions on this question for quite some time.
We might call them the Montagues and the Capulets, if I may use an analogy. The Cabinet has been divided between the Montagues and the Capulets, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Poplar is Capulet himself. We suspect that the Minister of Labour, on the other hand, is a Montague. What the hon. Lady is, I do not know. She may well be Juliet. As Mercutio said:
A plague o' both your houses.
He went further—and this could have been applied to the hon. Member for Poplar, for he said:
Thy head is as full of quarrels as an egg is full of meat;
Let us, for goodness' sake, stop this quarrelling and get on with solving the problem in the docks.
I should like the Government to consider the short-term effects of what they

have said this afternoon just on the interim period up to nationalisation, whenever it comes. I should like them to consider the damage they have caused in this already incredibly difficult and tricky situation. What about the time that has been wasted? The Devlin Committee has taken a year and more. It will probably take two or three years to put into effect all its recommendations. Four or five years will probably have gone by without any progress towards the ultimate solution, because it will all be plunged into the melting pot in a few years' time, whenever the Government bring in their nationalisation Bill.
As my right hon. Friend asked, what will be the effect on the career structure on the employers' side? Will management be able to offer a career, to recruit, to set up training and generally to provide the stable conditions in which people are likely to thrive? It is clear that this must have a tremendously inhibiting effect on management in the short-term.
Last, but by no means least, is the question of investment. What will induce employers to invest? We have not heard the time-scale. We very much look forward to hearing it from the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies. What is the time-scale when this act will be performed? It is clear that in this interval and until the Government's new scheme has been worked out and put into action, the incentives to investment by the employers, by the people who will be driven out of business, is practically nil.
Lord Devlin was no advocate of this course. Taking the short-term argument again, he said, in his report on page 93:
Nationalisation would, of course, upset completely the employers' side of the industry. It would upset the other side as well, for it would mean radical alteration of the Dock Labour Scheme.
Those were Lord Devlin's comments on what the Government propose.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Member pursue this matter of investment a little further? Will he not agree with me that investment is on two levels? First, we have the investment which is required by the port authority, both for the expansion of the port and for the modernisation of the port installations, which, incidentally, is also part of the question of cargo handling. Secondly, we have the employers. Surely this leads to confusion.
Is is not better to have one authority concerned with the overall investment?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member is quite right in his analysis of the problem, but I draw a completely different conclusion from that dichotomy. It seems to me that a much greater proportion of the investment should have been placed in the hands of the employers. That is a point to which I shall come, if he will bear with me. I will develop it much further.
We on this side of the House have our own ideas of how this industry should go in future. We believe that the employers should be given a far greater stake and a far greater chance to invest, which must mean long leases of wharves and quays, which is the system adopted in Rotterdam and Antwerp and many of the other great European ports. Employers have leases long enough to enable them to make the necessary investment and they can make the investment to suit their own ideas, rather than having to take a ready-made quay, which may not he exactly what they want, from the port authority.
There was a very strong plea indeed in the Rochdale Report that this sort of thing should be encouraged. This would be a direction in which we on this side of the House would like to have moved. We also criticise to some extent the provisions in the Bill because we do not believe that it provides enough flexibility for employers to come in and to go out and for good employers to muscle out bad employers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) made this point with great clarity and force, and I believe that my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and Dumfries (Mr. Monro) had the same idea. Neither is there the required flexibility over the number of employees and the whole vexed question of restrictive practices to which many of my hon. Friends have referred and to which I shall refer later. We would like to see progress on all these fronts.
However, we are prepared to shelve all of these opinions and directions in which we would like to see the industry move, in order to get unity behind Devlin at this time. What response have we had? We have had a bland statement from the

hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon that the Government are to nationalise this industry—she does not know when, she has not thought how or why—at a time when we should all unite to save what is, indeed, the parlous state in the docks and try to follow the lead which Devlin has given us to get out of the mess.
I do not for a moment dispute that the employers in many aspects have been at fault, though not all employers. I shall say more about that later. But there is not much advantage in going back over centuries of history, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) did in a very moving speech but one which, to my mind, went back and not forward. There are plenty of hurdles ahead without trying to make this operation more difficult. In June, we shall have Lord Devlin's Report on the pay structure and wage rates under the new scheme. In October, perhaps, we shall get the amended Dock Labour Order. Next January, the licensing of employers will largely be complete. All of these provide obstacles which it might well be difficult for the scheme to get over. I should have thought that there were enough difficulties in the way without throwing this new one in this afternoon. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that these may well have fouled the whole basis of co-operation, though on this side of the House we still wish fervently that that is not so.
In the long run, the Government will have to justify this strange proposal to nationalise which was added into the speech this afternoon. It seems to be a feature of the present Government, frightened as they are to take the bull by the horns and just say, "We will nationalise", that they seem to wish to create a condition of chaos, uncertainty and financial distress and an atmosphere where no business could possibly flourish, and then after a year or two they say, "This industry is failing the nation. Therefore, we will take it into public ownership."
This is what the Government have done on aircraft. They have cancelled the three main projects, virtually stopped all military orders and destroyed the research lead which we had, and then they say, "This industry is failing the nation. We must take it into public ownership." I would not be surprised if this were the


ultimate fate of the building societies. Now we have this proposal for the docks.
The proposals for decasualisation, the levy on employers for compensation and the levy for the provision of amenities will put at least 10 per cent., perhaps much more, on to the wage bill, so the employers have that to absorb in a very short time. There will doubtless be a substantial increase in pay. On top of that the Government have clapped the Selective Employment Tax. I know that they will get it back, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that it will cost the industry at least £2 million, and at this stage in the proceedings he is asking the dock employers to lend the Government, free of interest, between £2 million and £21 million on top of everything else? Now he claps on his other proposal as well. It is a strange philosophy that one must first strangle one's victim in order to make one's case, and then one can come along and have an excuse for nationalisation.
Decasualisation is the key to the whole situation, and we should all like to have seen it come in before. It is easy on this side of the House to blame the unions and on that side of the House to blame the employers for decasualisation having come at this late date. But we all know the difficulties. Perhaps the real reason why decasualisation has come so late to the docks is that it has been inhibited by the existence of the Dock Labour Scheme. No one criticises the scheme, but it has been the factor making this industry different from any other industry, making it harder for employers to identify themselves with employees and take responsibility for them, and for employees to identify themselves with employers and accord some loyalty to them.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), in an admirably effective speech, laid great stress on the failure over the years to provide amenities, yet he will, surely, admit that it was the casual system which made the provision of amenities difficult. Employers in other industries, in steel, in manufacturing and many other well known industries, have not been slow in this respect. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the docks have been so different? The dock employers are not hard-hearted men who refuse to consider the welfare of their

workers any more than other employers are. The fact is that people with one responsibility or another in the docks are almost legion, yet none is wholly and completely responsible. So each has shelved responsibility on to others. The Dock Labour Board could have forced the pace on providing amenities in the past. The employers could have provided amenities. The harbour authorities could have provided amenities. But they have shuffled the baby from one to the other, and it has not been done.
This is not a criticism only of the employers. It is a criticism also of the Dock Labour Board and of the port authorities. The root problem now emerges quite clearly as having been the fault of the casual labour system, which in its turn springs, as I have said, from the Dock Labour Scheme. If the Bill, as I believe it does, gives us a chance to get away from the casual labour system, this, surely, is the key to the solution of the problem rather than at this stage trying to nationalise the whole industry.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt again, but is it not a fact that, long before the Dock Labour Scheme came into operation, there was casual labour in the docks? In fact, there has never been anything else. The scheme tended to diminish casualness of labour, but it did not go far enough. The hon. Gentleman says that it springs from the scheme, but it is the nature of the industry which has given rise to the casualness of employment.

Mr. Ridley: Again, I do not greatly differ from the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that what happened was this. When the Dock Labour Scheme came into effect, it tended to ossify the structure of the industry and to slow down the progress which would have happened normally towards decasualisation. This is the reason why it has taken so long. I am sorry that I did not make myself clear in the first instance.
We on this side do not believe that nationalisation will solve the problem. The real problem is not a question of ownership, but of productivity in our docks and the modernisation and mechanisation of them to provide the efficient port transport system which we need. The examples of the railways, London Transport and other nationalised


industries do not lead us to believe that modernisation and increased productivity are very easily obtained by nationalisation. The Government must make out a case not on their doctrinaire beliefs about this, but on the actual likelihood of progress towards a more efficient industry as a result.
I want to say a brief word about capital investment, on the one hand, and labour practices, on the other, because so many of my hon. Friends have referred to this subject. We have a split between responsibility for labour and responsibility for investment ossified in the Government structure itself. Indeed, we have the two hon. Members opposite on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman being responsible for the investment side of the docks industry and the hon. Lady responsible for the labour side. Lower down, one finds that the harbour authorities are under one Ministry and the Dock Labour Board and the employers are under the other.
Throughout the history of the docks since the war there has been this division between the provision of capital and the provision of labour. This has led to the problem which the hon. Member for Walton suggested in his intervention, that the employers are not really in any way connected with the major investments which are to be made in the docks industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made the point —I could not agree with him more strongly—that one cannot look at a problem without having completely at one's finger tips the relationship between the cost of the capital project and the cost of the labour which one might save, and that the same people ought to consider both decisions and ought to be responsible both for the capital side and for the labour side of any decision.
We on this side of the House believe that one can do this satisfactorily only by giving these decisions to a number of different people suited to the different purposes which they are fulfilling in the docks and that if one tries to take these decisions centrally, as in the case of the railways and other nationalised industries, one tends, on balance, to end up with more errors than if one had left it to the collective sense of large numbers of boards of managers or directors.
If we may look at the labour side of the industry, the Bill provides long overdue welfare facilities. It compulsorily reduces the number of employers, and for this, too, no quid pro quois expected from the labour side. Further, we hope and pray that decasualisation will be 100 per cent. by the end of this year. Again, no quid pro quo is asked for by the labour side. There will be by mid-summer perhaps a new pay structure and new rates of pay. We do not yet know what they will be and we do not yet know whether Lord Devlin will have some form of strings attached to this in terms of restrictive practices.
We on this side support this approach. In view of the history of this industry, we believe that this is the right way to take it, but I tell the Government that in the long run there must be an end to the restrictive practices in this industry. Many people believe that piece work should be brought to an end. Everybody knows that shift work should be widely extended. Other matters to be dealt with include flexible manning, gang sizes and ends to inter-union disputes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) made some important and useful points on this subject, as did many other of my hon. Friends. Time after time in the history of our industrial life employers have been asked to concede pay rises, reduced hours or greater amenities on the promise that these would result in the abandonment in due course of certain restrictive practices. Some of us are beginning to wonder whether such bargains, which are not fulfilled, can go on much longer. But when it comes to the next round the same bargains are made and again no action taken.
The productivity figures of the country are getting so bad that there must be no doubt that the time for action is now. Lord Devlin recommended that those restrictive practices which arise out of the casual system in the docks should be dropped when the casual system brought to an end. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing asked—and I repeat his question—for an undertaking that this will be done, because the time has come when "buying the book", as Lord Devlin calls it, must result in the book being delivered.
The real test of nationalisation, and of whether this is a good Bill as well, is, on the one hand, whether investment is made in the right places and in the right quantities, not only in terms of building new ports, of cargo handling, of the right sort of wharves and equipment and of storage facilities, and, on the other, whether labour relations will be improved and restrictive practices dropped. I do not believe that nationalisation will help.
Hon. Members opposite have rather given themselves away today. They have argued consistently and strongly in favour of nationalisation at this stage. They have then gone on to justify all the restrictive practices and the low productivity results in the docks. I believe that nationalisation will allow these practices a longer lease of life.
Indeed, on that score alone, one could not have a stronger argument for resisting the pressure for nationalisation. Before I leave the subject, with which I have dealt at some length because we have more time than usual—and because we were taken by surprise by the hon. Lady's grave and damaging announcement—I want to reinforce what my right hon. Friend said. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport should at least tell us when this is likely to happen and what effect it will have on the present system and on the period that employers should have to plan their investment and make their plans for improving the docks even in the meantime. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the hon. Lady's announcement was most unsettling.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also deal with my right hon. Friend's comment about the effects of Clause 13. This is a detailed point to which we can return in Committee. My right hon. Friend suggested that the effect will be to hold up voluntary amalgamations between employers at this time because one will be able to obtain compensation only if one has been refused a licence, and, therefore, employers will have to continue in existence as separate entities until such time as they can apply for licences. In these circumstances, employers cannot very well go out of the business or amalgamate before that time arrives. We shall move Amendments in Committee to clear up these points.
The only other detailed point I would make concerns the doubt as to whether a stevedoring firm should be asked to contribute to compensation which may go to a lightermen's firm going out of business. This is the kind of difficulty over compensation to which one or two of my hon. Friends have referred and which we can clear up in Committee. We give the Government notice that we shall return to these points.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), has sat on the Government Front Bench with great patience all day and practically no one has mentioned harbours. Nearly all of the speeches have been about dock labour, but I would now like to make a few remarks about the harbours' side of the Bill.
When the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport opened the roll-off passenger car and cargo terminal at King George V Dock on 9th May, she confirmed the decision of the Labour Party to turn the National Ports Council into the National Ports Authority. She described this as a "revolution under way." We on this side of the House do not regard it as a revolution, because the Council is already in existence and the actual change from Council to Authority is merely a change in the form of public ownership and not at all a big step. However, what we find intolerable about the situation is that there does not seem to be any clear chain of command as to who is responsible for taking decisions and how this vital aspect of the industry is to work.
The question of Portbury now arises. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) discussed this, but a quotation from the Economist of 13th May will make the mystery apparent to him and to the rest of the House. It is:
The council advised the Government long before the election to give the go-ahead to the scheme for developing a new port at Portbury near Bristol. But, after prolonged delay the Minister of Transport has now declared that she is reviewing alternative projects in South Wales and Southampton before reaching a decision. The N.P.C. has admitted that it has been shown none of the alternatives at present being considered by the Government. contrary to the Harbours Act. This means that Mrs. Barbara Castle has chosen to listen to lobbying instead of her own advisory body. It makes nonsense of the advisory council's position both now and in future.
This is disturbing.
We are told by the Government that they wish to develop the Council into an Authority which, we take it, would have the same sort of power as a nationalised industry and, therefore, be free from Ministerial interference. If that is so, perhaps it would be better if we had it, because that would stop the right hon. Lady from listening to lobbying, as it is called, and interfering in the decisions of a highly qualified and greatly respected advisory body such as the National Ports Council.
Who is doing the lobbying? We are told about this lobbying, but can we be told who is doing it and what is the reason for it? What is the reason for the delay in giving the go-ahead to the very important new project at Portbury? The right hon. Lady said:
We are going to put everything in the way ci resources and encouragement we can behind t le plan.
What she has done so far is to delay it and stop it and apparently listen to some sort of lobbying. This is a situation which we want the Government to clear up. We want to be told what is going on at Port-bury, why there has been no decision, end why the Government are not accepting the advice of their own council in which, so far as we know, they have complete confidence and which has taken a great deal of trouble and care in arriving at its decision. Either we must have a nationalised industry, like the electricity industry, with the power to take its own cecision and with no interference, or we must have a loose federation such as we now have with the Council advising the Minister, in which case the Minister must take the advice of her own council and get on with it.
If there were any need, there is further evidence of the Government's desire to interfere in the affairs of the ports in Section 62 of the Annual Report of the National Ports Council, which has just been published. The Council asks the Government whether it could have powers itself to sanction any scheme costing up to £2,500,000 which a port might put forward. The present maximum is only £500,000. We see that a provision to this effect is not included in the Bill, which shows that the Government are not prepared to give their own National Ports Council the right to take decisions up to £2,500,000. I cannot understand why the Government have not given the Council

this go-ahead. It seems to me that they are determined to interfere in these decisions and that it would be far better if they stopped listening to lobbying and got on with the job of modernising our ports.
This is a good Bill—or, this was a good Bill, is, perhaps, how I should put it. We on this side of the House believe that the Devlin you know is better than the devil you do not. We have no intention of dividing against the Bill, but we are shocked and horrified that this good Bill, which all reasonable men support, should have been put in jeopardy by what the hon. Lady said this afternoon, perhaps risking four or five years of precious time, throwing the industry into the cockpit of party politics, and once more introducing a spirit of partisan, doctrinaire, one-sided interest when we had just about reached a spirit of unity and co-operation in the House.
On those grounds, we thoroughly condemn the Government, although we shall expedite the passage of the Bill through the House.

9.11 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): It is a pleasure for me to be able to congratulate a vigorous, well-informed and forthright maiden speaker. I was delighted to have the opportunity to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis). I expected well of him, and I was not a bit disappointed by his first-class advocacy of those principles which are dear to his heart. We look forward to hearing him again, when he will be able to plunge into the full vigour of the controversy of debate.
We have had a valuable and interesting debate although, in spite of some of the emotional excitement on the Opposition Front Bench, it has not evoked a tremendous pressure of attendance or competition to participate. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) managed to lather himself into a certain amount of vigour with his entirely synthetic astonishment at a part of the excellent speech with which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour opened the debate.
For the benefit of all hon. Members I want to repeat what my hon. Friend said,


so that we are quite clear what is the part of my hon. Friend's speech that caused such excitement in the breast of the right hon. Gentleman and has been a great part of the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Presenting the general provisions of the Bill and the background from which it stems, my hon. Friend said:
In our election manifesto we announced our intention to reorganise and modernise the ports on the basis of a strong National Ports Authority and publicly-owned regional port authorities, with each port authority ultimately responsible for all port operations in its area, including stevedoring, and with an extension of the joint participation which is already a feature of the dock industry. That is a pledge we have every intention of carrying out. But a major reconstruction of this kind will need careful preparation and will inevitably take a considerable time to bring into effect.
That is what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that she will confess that there was nothing novel or surprising about this important feature of her speech. In fact, in spite of the astonishment of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, she was merely paraphrasing part of the Labour Party's election manifesto which, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked.
The situation appears to be that if we in the Labour Party declare the principles of policies, we are said to be creating a very difficult situation and to be causing uncertainty if we propose to make changes. If, however, we do not declare the principles of policy, we are said to be creating a vacuum and to be deficient or even dishonest. If we declare the principles of policy but, as a result of the persuasions of hon. Members opposite we do not carry them out, we shall be accused of ratting and of running away from the situation.
How does one deal with these people? What on earth do they want?

Mr. Ridley: Why not change the principles?

Mr. Swingler: I see. This House is founded to debate the principles. I want to impress upon right hon. and hon. Members opposite that in spite of the long history of the Conservative Party, it is sometimes advisable and desirable to have principles and, if one has principles,

to declare them and then proceed to the hard and diligent work of applying them.
Indeed, in some parts of his speech, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East suggested that even he might be coaxed towards that position. The right hon. Gentleman made two interesting statements in the opening part of his speech. One was that the past history of the important industry with which we have been dealing today reflects, he said, little credit on either side. I take it that he meant that industrially it was satisfactory but that politically it reflected little credit on either side of this House.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that we need an overall strategy. He emphasised that we needed an overall strategy for transport because the industry with which we are dealing—the ports and the provision of ports, harbours and docks—is part of the great transport industry, for which, indeed, we need an overall strategy in providing co-ordination.
The Labour Party declared in its manifesto, on the basis of its examination of the facts and precisely because of the past history of the industry, the need for fundamental and far-reaching changes. During the debate many of my hon. Friends, from their wealth of experience, have demonstrated how right that is and that the situation is one which calls for fundamental and far-reaching changes.
We know, however, that the preparation of plans which involve fundamental and far-reaching changes may take a considerable time. Therefore, the Government decided that we should not delay but that in the context of the declaration of our principles we should proceed to apply those parts of the recommendations of the Devlin Report and of other Reports which have been mentioned in the debate which are necessary to meet urgent situations.
We on this side are not the only people who consider that far-reaching and fundamental changes are necessary in this industry. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury brought in the old hoary one about the doctrinaire approach and the Labour Party having suddenly cooked up the idea that we must nationalise something, so we had better mationalise the docks.
It is extraordinary to me that no right hon. or hon. Member opposite in the


debate, so far as I know—I have not managed to attend quite the whole of the debate—has mentioned the article which appeared last week in The Times, on 19th May, by a distinguished member of the Conservative Party who for several years held the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport with special responsibility for shipping. Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett was a highly respected Member of this House and was recognised as a diligent junior Minister. He held the job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport between 1961 and 1964 and in 1964 was the vice-chairman of the Shipping Advisory Panel.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett's article appeared in The Times on 19th May, and I would draw the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the conclusions he reached when they are criticising the Government for foreshadowing the need for fundamental and far-reaching changes in the industry. I can only quote short passages from the article, but I do not wish to misrepresent what the Admiral says. One of the important things which he says is:
The problem we face is how to devise a national authority which can decide rather than recommend …".
That was in regard to the development of our harbours and docks. Secondly he says:
The form and constitution of port authorities is crucial. Most people agree that they should exercise comprehensive powers, including more responsibility for cargo handling.
Here then is this highly distinguished pillar of the Conservative Party, who for three years had experience in the job that I now hold, saying towards the end of the article:
I have reached the conclusion that the lesser evil"—
to the alternative policies which he examined—
would be to concede the principle that port authorities should themselves become the sole employer of dock labour".
I quote this passage to show that it is not only in the Labour Party that these so-called doctrinaire conclusions exist. We need a policy for a strong national port authority, for independent regional port authorities, which as Admiral Hughes Hallett assumed in the article must he under public ownership, and for

port authorities which have comprehensive administrative and operational responsibilities.
I commend that article to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who appear, in some respects, to be slightly intellectually poverty-stricken in their contributions to the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East raised the question of new employers. He suggested that the provisions of the Bill might have the danger of creating oligopoly, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury mentioned the point, too.
We see no reason why the licensing system introduced in this Bill will create such a monopoly situation. Under the provisions of the Bill it is open to a potential new employer to apply for a licence and to appeal to the Minister of Transport if the licensing authority turns down the application. If a new employer is granted a licence it will stipulate the number of workers to be allocated and the date by which this is to be done. Thus, new employers are provided for.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of Customs clearance under Clause 35. I should like to draw his attention to the little piece which I think he overlooked at the bottom of page 27, in Clause 35(5) which says:
Nothing in this Section shall effect the power of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under the enactments relating to customs and excise to approve places for the loading, unloading …
He will see that this matter has been dealt with.
I pass to the question of amenity provisions in non-scheme ports. This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, who made his maiden speech, and by a number of other hon. Members. There are three points about this matter. First, in the revision of the Dock Labour Scheme, ports which are at the moment outside the provision of the Bill because they are not in that Scheme may be brought in. Secondly,it is the aim of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to continue to press by negotiation for the provision of better amenities for dock workers in the non-scheme ports. Thirdly, under the Factories Acts, there are powers to make regulations which should apply to all


ports and harbours for the improvement of amenities and conditions. My right hon. Friend has every intention of applying himself to that point. Therefore, in these three ways we hope that, marching together with the provisions made in the Bill, we shall bring about improvements in the non-scheme ports.
I turn to an objection raised by several hon. Members opposite about the fact that under the Bill we have decided that the harbour authorities should be the licensing authorities. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) and, I think, the hon. Members for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and Dumfries (Mr. Monro) quoted the fact that the Devlin Report had advised that the National Ports Council should be made the licensing authority and asked whether we did not think that our decision gave harbour authorities an unfair advantage. First, we believe that the port authorities which have responsibility for maintaining the efficiency of the ports should have the major responsibility of the licensing system because it is connected with getting a higher standard of efficiency in the operation of the ports. But, secondly, there is in the Bill the safeguard of the appeal to the Minister of Transport against any decision taken by the licensing authorities or on account of representations made by the National Port Council. Therefore, we think that the harbour authorities are the best bodies to carry out this task.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster also objected to the position of the British Transport Docks Board and questioned the capacity of its local managers to carry out their functions in the licensing system. It is not the intention of the British Transport Docks Board to delegate its functions to the local managers. It will carry out these functions centrally as a licensing authority. The Board should not be treated differently from any other authority in the docks system under this licensing scheme. It should carry out its functions in precisely the same way.
Several hon. Members have pressed the question of restrictive practices. They will know from what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that this aspect of what is a combined operation to bring about greater productivity, a higher standard of

efficiency and improved relations in the docks is one to which Lord Brown's modernisation committee has been paying attention for some time. Local modernisation committees have been formed, and it is through these bodies that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to get agreement among all those concerned about the abandonment of restrictive practices and the greatest standard of efficiency possible.
I return to the main purposes of the Bill with which I propose to deal very briefly because they have been widely debated and there is a wide consensus of opinion about them. The most important part of the Bill deals with the licensing of port employers. As my hon. Friend explained in her opening speech, this is only one aspect of a much wider operation to bring to an end the system of casual employment in the docks, and to introduce more stable working conditions.
Quite apart from the far-reaching effects of this on pay, working practices, and the operation of the dock labour scheme it is itself an inherently difficult operation. Day-to-day fluctuations of work can never be entirely avoided in dock operations, and the problem is to develop the necessary flexibility in deploying the labour force to meet those fluctuations while at the same time allowing management and men to work regularly together, so that better relations and a greater measure of understanding can be developed.
Clearly, the first prerequisite if we are to achieve this is a drastic reduction in the number of employers. I do not think that this has really been contested in this debate. It means the emergence of bigger employing units providing more efficient and progressive management, and I suggest that the licensing system proposed in the Bill will be an effective means of bringing this about and of doing it in a way fair to all concerned.
The second part of the Bill deals with proper provision of welfare amenities. Many hon. Members have put their finger on this as an appalling piece of neglect in the past, and I think there is widespread support for this part of the Bill. Legislation to ensure decent facilities for dock workers is long overdue. Indeed, this is a matter in which our ports have been far behind those in some other countries,


as many hon. Members have pointed out, and, indeed, behind the rest of industry in this country. We intend to see that this is rectified. The amenity provisions in this Bill will give to the Dock Labour Board power to play a leading role in this matter. It is right that the unions should be closely associated with the provision of welfare facilities and their membership of the Dock Labour Board will ensure this.
Thirdly, it is the purpose of the Bill to contribute to port efficiency, and foremost in this respect is the power in the Bill for harbour authorities to operate inland clearance depôts. These depots are of increasing importance in dealing with cargoes in containers. There are many new and exciting developments in this field and we want the port authorities to be fully equipped to play their part directly in improving the methods of transport. This is not only our view but Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett and many others who examined the problem agreed that this should be done. The depots will also help to relieve congestion in areas immediate to the ports, and we want to encourage them as much as possible.
There are also provisions in the Bill to enable port authorities which previously did not possess the powers to participate actively in the handling of cargo and other operations in the port. There is too much diffusion of control in ports. By giving port authorities power to carry out harbour operations we shall encourage them to set about making the everyday business of the port much less complicated, and so speed the flow of traffic through the ports. As part of this policy we propose giving the harbour authorities a general power to acquire businesses by agreement, so long as they are businesses wholly or mainly engaged in carrying out harbour operations. If harbour authorities decide to buy a business they will be able to do this under this Bill only by agreement, and it will be for the two parties to settle the terms between themselves.
Part III also contains important provisions to assist port reorganisation. I want to make clear that we are going ahead with the proposals for the reorganisation of the ports on the main estuaries. The National Ports Council has done

outstanding work in bringing measures of port reorganisation forward, and already useful results are emerging from the estuarial grouping on the Clyde which came into effect last January. My right hon. Friend will continue to encourage the National Ports Council and port authorities to promote strong, well-managed, efficient and forward-looking estuarial authorities.
We believe that these authorities will fit in well with a scheme of promoting publicly-owned regional port authorities. We regard all these as immediate and necessary steps towards the realisation of the Government's long-term intention of reorganising the ports on the basis of a strong national authority and publicly-owned regional authorities, with each body ultimately responsible for all the operations of its area.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury drew attention to the importance of the investment programme. We certainly regard the national investment programme in the ports and docks as something that must run side by side with the measures proposed in the Bill. We know that for many years there has been a failure to invest adequately in our ports, a failure to take advantage of new technology, and a failure to equip the ports to accept larger ships, particularly the bulk carriers which are coming into use increasingly.
Between 1952 and 1964, less than £18 million per annum on average was invested in the ports, and most of that was on making good war damage. Last year, we invested the sum of £30 million, and that is a sum which will grow year by year on the basis of the recommendations made by the National Ports Council. In the next four years, we expect that £112 million will be spent on these schemes, and in that same period an additional £123 million will be spent on other urgently needed developments. That will mean a total investment of some £235 million in four years—nearly £60 million a year, compared with the £18 million a year that was being invested between 1952 and 1964. By implementing the promise to help the ports which we made in the White Paper on Investment Incentives, we shall ensure that these programmes are carried out.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite—and, naturally, my hon. Friend the Member


for Bristol, North-West drew attention once again to the Portbury scheme. Let me say to them that they will not have to wait very long, but it is a matter of a recommendation to invest several tens of millions of £s. As alternative proposals were put forward after the recommendation had come to my right hon. Friend about the Portbury scheme, we considered that those proposals should be examined carefully. When the Government come to take a decision on a third major liner terminal which will cost tens of millions of £s, all the different alternatives ought to be assessed carefully, but it will not be very long before a decision is taken and announced.

Mr. Ridley: Should not these representations have been referred back to the National Ports Council? Is that not what it is for?

Mr. Swingler: No. It is precisely in order not to waste more time on the part of the National Ports Council that my right hon. Friend was right in deciding that the Ministry of Transport should, in conjunction with other Departments of Government, undertake the economic and technical assessments of the schemes with the port authorities themselves. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must not think that the examination of these sorts of proposals stops at any particular point in time. As various bodies are considering new technical or economic developments in our ports, other proposals are being argued in other places, and it is right, when the Government are asked to take a decision that will cost a sum of money of the order of the proposed Portbury scheme, that all the alternatives that have been put forward by other port authorities should be assessed very carefully.
If that is quoted as if my right hon. Friend and the Government had been failing to take decisions about port investment, let me draw attention to the following in relation to the figures that I have just quoted. We have recently authorised to the Port of London Authority at Tilbury a new development to provide seven new berths at a cost of £10 million. Work on this has already started. At Hull we have authorised the British Transport Docks Board to construct seven new berths at King George Dock at a cost of £7 million. At Newport

we have authorised the Board to construct three new berths at a cost of £2½million. We have authorised the Railways Board to redevelop Parkeston Quay and to develop new container roll-on roll-off services at a cost of £2½ million. At Leith we have authorised developments which will cost £6 million, and at Grangemouth we have authorised the development of a new lock which will cost £7 million. We have authorised a new terminal at Port Talbot for the Steel Company of Wales, at a cost of £17 million.

Sir K. Joseph: In deciding on these big investments, will the Government take into account the improved productivity of labour which they hope will emerge from this Bill and from other activities?

Mr. Swingler: Certainly. As I said, this is a combined operation of the work of Lord Brown's Modernisation Committee, the attack on restrictive practices, the technological improvement of the ports and docks, and the evolvement of the Investment Plan. All these things go together. I merely give these illustrations because of criticisms, which sometimes receive disproportionate publicity, that there is a delay in a decision on this or that port or harbour scheme.
I believe that the figures which I have given of the enormous build-up in overall capital investment in our ports and harbours last year, and for the next few years, and the examples of decisions which the Government have recently taken in respect of various parts of the country, illustrate the importance as well as the cost of the enormous national investment programme on which we have embarked for the modernisation of our docks and ports.

Mr. Simon Mahon: My hon. Friend has mentioned several vast new enterprises. He has omitted to mention the new improvements at Liverpool which have cost £36 million and which represent only the first part of the extension there.

Mr. Swingler: That shows how difficult it is to please everybody. If I omit only one place in the Kingdom, I fail to give a comprehensive picture. As my hon. Friend knows, there are a vast number of other schemes which have either been approved or are under urgent


consideration, and which will form part of this £60 million per annum of capital investment in our ports and harbours on which the Labour Government are embarking, compared with the £l8 million per annum which we had in the years between 1962 and 1964.
Together with our National Investment Plan, we believe that the Bill will make an essential contribution to the reform of employment conditions in the docks, to the provision of proper welfare facilities for dock workers, and to the development of important new powers which will help in the efficient operation of our ports and harbours. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What is to be the position of the National Dock Labour Board in a port like Southampton, where at the moment it is responsible for sharing out or allocating work to the various individual employers and so ensuring a fair sharing out of the work amongst various workmen?

Mr. Swingler: I think that that is a Committee point. It is a detailed and technical point, and therefore, especially as it principally concerns my right hon. Friend, I would prefer to go into it in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DOCKS AND HARBOURS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for regulating the employment of dock workers, is expedient to authorise—

1. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any sums required by the Minister of Transport for making to licensing authorities loans required by such authorities for making payments under the provisions of that Act relating to the compensation

of persons prohibited from employing, or working on their own account as, dock workers;
(b) of any sums required by the Minister of Labour for making loans to the National Dock Labour Board, or any other body for the time being responsible for the administration of any labour scheme within the meaning of that Act, for enabling the said Board or other body to remedy defaults in the provision or maintenance of welfare amenities under that Act;
(c) of fees and allowances to persons appointed to hold inquiries under that Act. and to assessors at such inquiries, and allowances to persons giving evidence before such inquiries;
(d) of any expenses incurred by any Minister in carrying that Act into effect; and
(e) of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of rate deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;

2. the payment into the Exchequer and the re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid or re-issued by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to the assumption of debts by harbour authorities.—[Mr. Swingler.]

9.45 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have only one minor point to raise on the Money Resolution. I should have explained that I knew that there was a reference to the provisions contained in Clause 35(5). My worry is that the Customs authorities may not be as willing to co-operate in the new schemes as the Government are to set them up. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether any power is given in the Money Resolution to cover any extra expenditure which the Customs and Excise might have to undertake in approving and servicing schemes of this sort?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will see that subsection (5) provides that
Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under the enactments relating to customs and excise to approve places for the loading, unloading, deposit, keeping or securing of goods or the conditions and restrictions subject to which approval may be given to any such places.
I should have thought that that answered the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: With respect, I do not


think that it does answer the question put by my right hon. Friend. He pointed out that the Money Resolution does not refer to the Treasury having the power to expend money on the Customs authorities in order to allow them to provide the extra facilities and extra supervision which may be necessary if inland depots are provided under the Bill.
In Committee, we may want to raise this point, and to make sure that there will be no obstruction from the Customs authorities in connection with the provision of these depots. We cannot see in the Money Resolution any reference whatever to the power for this to be done. My right hon. Friend is quite prepared to be told that it is in order, but I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary must answer the question arising from the Money Resolution not by quoting the Bill, but by quoting the Resolution.

The Chairman: The Question is——

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Chairman: The Question is——

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask me to answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

9.51 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move.
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the corresponding Scottish scheme at the same time:
That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the House agrees.

Mr. Mackie: Before dealing with the Scheme I wish to say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who, I understand, is to take charge of the Opposition's affairs dealing with agriculture, on the Front Bench. He and I have something in common, for we are both practical farmers. When I say that we are both practical farmers, I am not casting aspersions on other hon. Members.
Hon. Members will recall that when the Part I ploughing grant was introduced in 1952 the aim was increase the acreage of tillage by the regular ploughing of grassland. In 1955, the rate of grant was put up to the very substantial level of £7 an acre—well above the actual cost of the ploughing itself—to offer a real incentive to take the plough round the farm. The grant remained at that level until 1963, when it was recognised that this particular form of husbandry no longer justified a subsidy of that size and the rate was reduced to £5 an acre.
This year we have decided that a further reduction should be made in the rate of grant. There were two particular changes or trends in agriculture which we had in mind when examining this grant. First, in the field of cereal production, the introduction of improved methods of mechanical cultivation and chemical weed control are tending to make a long break in cereals unnecessary. Where a break is needed, beans or some other crop can often be as suitable as a ley. Second, in the field of grassland husbandry, experiments have shown that the high stocking rates which are necessary today can in many circumstances be more readily achieved by the improved management of permanent grass, without necessarily making use of the plough.
I am not suggesting, of course, that ploughing and ley farming can be universally replaced, but I am sure that farmers should not be encouraged to follow a particular policy merely because of the attraction of a high rate of subsidy. If the ploughing grant were to remain at £5 an acre, it would provide a pretty powerful incentive to stick to the old ideas of three- or four-year-leys. This was why at the Price Review this year we decided that the time had come to reduce the level of the grant to £2 10s. an acre.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must continually re-examine the various grants and subsidies which are paid to farmers to ensure that they are justified in terms of modern developments. This is what we have done with the Part I ploughing grant. It may be that when we look at it again in a year or two's time, we will decide to make other changes, but we think that a cut of 50 per cent. now is right.
Turning now to Part II of the Scheme, this grant was introduced in 1952 alongside the Part I grant to encourage the reclamation of old derelict grassland which needed quite drastic and expensive treatment before it could be made productive again. Since then over 600,000 acres have so far been dealt with under this part of the scheme and each year an Extra 40,000 or 50,000 acres qualify for grant. It is clear that this is an important contribution to land being brought back into cultivation, when we lose so much to urban development. This grant does a lot to give us back what we have lost. It is clear that this grant is still serving a useful purpose, and we do not propose any changes in the rate of £12 an acre at present.
I ought, however, to draw attention to some changes that have been made to the wording of paragraph 6 of the Scheme this year. The first of these removes any doubts which may have existed about the propriety of taking account of the cost of preliminary operations in assessing the likely cost of the work as a whole. There was some doubt about this, such as the cost of stump clearing and other preliminary work before ploughing started. This point has been made quite clear. It is not a new departure, but the wording of previous Schemes on this point was not entirely clear.
The second point arises from the fact that the Scheme is an annual one but that the kind of operations which are grant-aided under Part II may be spread over more than one year. Under the previous schemes, farmers who had been given the Minister's approval to carry out ploughing operations but who had not completed the work by 31st May of that year had to apply for fresh approval on 1st June. The effect of paragraph 6(3) of the draft Scheme is to allow an approval given under the previous Scheme to re-

main in effect for the current Scheme. I am sure that this change will be welcomed by all those who take part in this Scheme.
The House may wish to have the usual figures relating to the ploughing grants. For this purpose I shall take the financial year 1965-66 because it provides the latest available figures. During that year, in the United Kingdom as a whole, over 11 million acres of grassland was ploughed under Part I of the Scheme, attracting just under £7 million in grants. Of this total 59 per cent. went to England, 23 per cent. to Scotland, 9 per cent. to Northern Ireland, and 9 per cent. to Wales.
The sum paid under Part II grants during the same period amounted to £610,000 in respect of 54,000 acres.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this opportunity to put forward the views of this side of the House on the Ploughing Grant Scheme of 1966 which affects England, Scotland and Wales. It gives us the chance to ask the Minister one or two questions. We know that the cut has been from £5 to £2 10s. and that under Part II the £12 an acre for old pastures is retained—and this I welcome, because I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it is vitally important to clear up these odd patches of waste ground and bring them into full production.
I should like to pay tribute to the usefulness of these ploughing grants. Over the years they have had a remarkable effect on our farming scene. Even more than the financial gain in terms of these subsidies, it has educated farmers to regard grass as a crop and ley farming has flourished under these grants, which play an important part in encouraging good husbandry and grassland management. This provides farmers with a chance of a break in the continuous cereal cycle. This continuous cereal cycle is more and more widespread, but it has its dangers. I wonder how far these reductions in the ploughing grant subsidies will encourage this continuous cereals cropping, with the dangers of diseases such as take-all and loss of soil fertility. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
What are the reasons for these cuts? It is true that a reduction in the ploughing


grant will provide less incentive to plough up grassland for cereals, and, of course, other crops, but particularly cereals. Is this, I wonder, the real reason for the cut? Is the Minister concerned about our overseas supplies and does he wish to use this method to contain the production of cereals?
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Transport Finances Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Mills: I personally believe that these ploughing grants have a useful part still to play in the general scheme of things, though, of course, nothing like as it was in years gone by when it was of vital importance to increase production to the limit. It is true that some people question whether there is any need for these grants, for people take the plough around the farm as a matter of normal routine these days. How far will this stop, with this reduction in the ploughing grant? That remains to be seen.
Will not the Minister agree that the fact that these grants have been reduced might cause some suffering to the small farmer, unless of course the money saved was diverted his way in some form or another. This may well be one of the effects of these cuts. I should like to point out to the Minister, too, that it will most likely be the areas such as the South-West and the wetter areas in the West, and indeed in Scotland, with a high proportion of grass that will perhaps feel the cut most. They have practised ley farming by direct reseeding, and surely this ploughing grant cut will not help that to continue, which I believe to be of tremendous value. This again will mean a loss of income to the small farmer who will probably feel it more than the bigger farmers. The reason for this is that the grant, like all other revenue production grants, represents an interim payment towards the price of the

end product, and this is extremely important to many small farmers who rely to a great extent on grants of this kind to bolster up their incomes.
I wonder whether the Minister can give any figures about the effect that this will have on the smaller farmers. The Minister gave us the acreage figures and the cost, but I am wondering whether he could break them down a little further and tell us the cost and the acreage in the various regions. I ask this because I believe it is important to compare various regions, to see what effect the reduction of the ploughing grant has in the arable regions as compared with the wetter areas of our country.
There are some further questions that I should like the Minister to answer. Will the form remain the same? I have one here, and I must say that of all the forms that farmers get, this is perhaps the simplest and the easiest to understand. This is a matter on which we should congratulate the Ministry. But will it remain the same? I hope so.
Is the system of payment the same? I believe that speed in payment is important, and I hope there will not be a long delay in the payment of these grants. Will rotavation still be allowed? I hope so. Will other modern forms of preparing the seedbed, such as by chemicals, be allowed? These are important questions and I hope the Minister will answer them.
It will be important to await the practical results of this cut in the ploughing grant. I trust that the dangers of the continuous cereal cycle will not be overlooked by the Minister. I am afraid that the small farmer may find it difficult to recoup another reduction in the total income to his holding.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: May I, with great humility, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on an excellent "maiden" speech from the Front Bench. He always speaks lucidly, and this evening he not only did that but he put some very pertinent questions to the Minister, which I entirely endorse.
The Minister has not made out a case for the reduction of the subsidy from £5 to £2 10s., particularly as it applies to the remoter areas of North-East Scotland and South-West England. Farmers in these areas have had to put up with a


good many imposts from this Government in increased costs and charges. Without doubt, one factor which has helped to making agriculture as viable as it has been the production of homegrown feeding stuffs, by which I mean feeding stuffs actually grown on the farm and not imported either from another area or from abroad.
How can the Minister justify this reduction, in view of all the other increased costs? Secondly, can he tell us haw many of the 600,000 acres ploughed up under Part II of the Scheme since 1952 are in Scotland?

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: This is another sorry decision of the Government. If it was a valuable grant before, it is only half as valuable now, and the farmers of Scotland, particularly those in the remoter areas spoken of by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), will be singularly angry with the Government for their decision.
The Minister ought to realise that in the remoter areas and all the livestock rearing areas of Scotland we are not ploughing for cash crops. We plough to improve the quality of our grassland. We do not do it as frequently as is done for cash crops, and it is all the more important, therefore, to have the leadership which the grant has given to break the ground. This is the saddest aspect of the Government's decision, because the leadership which the grant gave in encouraging farmers to break their ground has undoubtedly improved the quality of grassland throughout many areas of Scotland, but I am certain that there may well be a reduction in ploughing now because of the loss of grant.
The Minister went galloping along on his plough so fast that I was not able to keep up with him on Part II. Perhaps he will make clear whether the £12 grant can still be awarded as well as the scrubland and reclamation grant. In recent years, it has not been so, and I want to know whether there has been a change it policy. I want to know also what the timetable will be in both Scotland and England for the period between application for grant and payment. It now seems necessary to give the 14 days' notice on completion of ploughing.
The most important aspect of the whole Scheme is that this is another miserable effort by the Government to reduce the farmer's income, and I hope that we shall take the strongest objection to their attitude.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The debate so far has shown clearly what the impact of this cut in subsidy will be on the livestock areas, particularly in the remoter areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) pointed out, in the livestock areas this grant was a great incentive to improve grassland and to increase our production of livestock products, particularly meat, of which this country is in such short supply.
The particularly sorry feature of the cut is that there is no way by which the money is to be put back into farming in these areas. One is taking away a certain amount of money from the arable areas, as well. In the more remote areas—grassland and upland areas—the grant has been of the greatest benefit, but nothing is being put back. This is very disappointing. It is the upland areas which need it. The upland dairy farms have a much rougher time than others, and yet it is from these areas that our supply of store stock, sheep and calves, come forward for fattening lower down.
So it is very disappointing that, if a cut was necessary, there is no simultaneous and corresponding increase in other respects, such as in the grassland renovation grant, which is at a not very adequate level. It is particularly disappointing that the money has not been put back in such a way.
If the grant is to be reduced, as appears to be the case, to £32 million a year—I imagine that that is the figure that the Government have in mind—can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what the costs of administering the grant will be? If we are coming down to a grant of such a low value, I wonder what the costs of administration will be and whether the money would not be better spent through other schemes to help areas of farmland which are particularly in need of it.
I have been struck by the interest shown in this debate by hon. Members


from Scotland. All of us know the feeling that there is in our constituencies about the reduction in the grant. In expressing our views, we are showing the concern that is felt by the farmers in Scotland. Now that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, is in the Chamber, I hope that we shall have the benefit of a reply from him to the debate. This question affects Scottish farmers very much, and I am sure that Scottish farmers who read reports of the debate will be disappointed if we have a reply only from a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and not from one of our Scottish Ministers.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: If it is in order for an English back bencher to speak on this occasion, I shall be very grateful for the opportunity to question the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on a matter touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) in his very forceful and questioning speech. He asked whether it was in order for the grant to be paid where grassland had not been ploughed but had been broken down by means of new chemical techniques and resown. These new methods are very much to the fore at the moment.
I am sure that whichever Minister replies to the debate, even if it is the Scottish Minister, will be conversant with these new chemical methods of restoring old grassland. One can spray the grassland and then leave it for six weeks, and this totally kills the sward, and after that one can direct-reseed and restore the grassland to a very excellent state of production in a very short time with the minimum wasted period when there is no production.
Because of the publicity given to these new methods and their technical excellence, they must surely have been considered when the Order was drawn up, but they have been omitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington asked whether it was in order for them to be used. I shall be most surprised if it is in order for them to be used under this Scheme. It seems to me on reading it that only ploughing qualifies for the grant. Whichever Minister replies must tell us why the new techniques have not been included.
The farming enterprises of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture appear in all the smart glossy farming magazines very frequently, and I am sure that he is conversant with these methods and has been pressing for their inclusion. They have been left out. Why? Is it because the Government's policy is, in a short time, to scrap the scheme altogether and cut the subsidy from £2 10s. to nothing at the earliest possible moment? Do they think that, because the scheme has only relatively few years to run, it is not worth including new methods of grassland renovation? We must have an answer.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I want to reiterate and confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has said. If I can have the attention of those on the Treasury Bench, I wish to say to them that, when charges such as he has made are delivered, the Treasury Bench is wont to scoff at them and appear to suggest that there is no foundation for them. We on this side have a very profound and ever-growing suspicion about the motives of the Government towards agriculture in particular and the countryside in general.
Our suspicions have not been laid to rest by the ludicrous propositions we have recently heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which, we understand, are to be fathered by the Minister of Labour. But we expect a more convincing and cogent explanation than we have yet had from the Treasury Bench and the more we see the supercilious smiles coming from that source the greater will be our impatience to hear a sound explanation.
I want to turn attention to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who, as a very old friend, I am delighted to see on the Government Front Bench. He is a master of English, though not always of the briefest character. We have heard him on many occasions. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not permit me to remind the House in detail of his previous escapades, but, nevertheless, I call his attention to something that I would not blame him personally for.
Although the hon. Gentleman has deployed his knowledge of English at length, never have I heard his use language such as is contained in paragraph


2(3) of the Scheme relating to Scotland. It would be wrong for these immortal words not to be written into the record:
Any reference in this scheme to any other scheme shall be construed as a reference to that scheme as amended by any subsequent scheme, and if any scheme referred to in this scheme is replaced by a subsequent scheme the reference shall be construed as a reference to that subsequent scheme.
Modestly, I disclaim any title to the laughter that that ridiculous sentence has excited, Ministers are confident in a great majority and look forward to an almost—to them—unending future of power—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said "to them"—but there is an almost unending future for them now if they go on this way. I ask Ministers to look with some care at the horrid language which they seek to perpetrate in the name of government.
I am amazed by the restraint which I have exercised tonight. The time will come, I do not doubt, when I shall be tempted to emulate the verbosity of the Minister of State. For the moment I am asking him modestly, and in these very few words, to use his undoubted influence to improve the language which finds its way into these horrid Statutory Instruments.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I join with my hon. Friends in condemning this continuous progress of cutting the farmer's income. I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we can give up leys with safety, particularly in the Eastern Counties. If we do not look out, on our very light lands we shall be continuously growing either cereals or carrots, and I cannot believe that that is a good method of farming.
Nor do I agree with my hon. Friends from Scotland, or from the wetter districts, as they like to describe them, that they are the main victims of this cut in the ploughing-up grant. In East Anglia we have used this grant to great advantage. The light lands cannot go on growing cereal crops year in and year out without a rest, and the rest has enabled us to produce a lot of beef cattle, beef stores on our light sandy lands, although we shall probably not get more than 50 per cent. of the beef cow subsidy because we do not need 2½ acres per cow to keep our cow herds.
I protest most vigorously at this reduction, which is another blow to the farmer's income. There would be no grumbles if we had seen where additional income had been put into the pockets of farmers, but in our area cereal prices have been cut to the bone, sugar beet costs have gone up tremendously over the last few years, and prices have remained the same. On the light lands of East Anglia we can make a considerable contribution to the increased production of store cattle for beef production, but this cut in the ploughing-up grant without some additional income in the way of either increased beef prices or a cut in the acreage allowed per beef cow will drive us out of animal husbandry altogether.
I stress that farmers in England and Wales and Scotland, even the wetter parts of England, have found month after month, from the time the Labour Party came into power, that we have had cut after cut and increased cost after increased cost put on the backs of the farmers. We cannot go on bearing this much longer and we must see that this cut in the ploughing-up grant is made up to the farmers in some other way.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: Mr. John Mackie rose——

Mr. J. B. Godber: Surely it is amazing that we should be debating two Schemes, one affecting England and Wales and the other affecting Scotland, without having a speech from a Scottish Minister. We have had a number of speeches from Scottish hon. Members on this side of the House and surely it is customary in these circumstances to have a Scottish Minister to wind up the debate. I wish no discourtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom we are always happy to listen, but if we are not to have a Scottish Minister, the House will not have the opportunity to hear the Government's attitude to matters affecting Scotland.

Mr. Mackie: I think it was the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who said that we did not pay attention to things—[Interruption.]—if their colleagues opposite would keep quiet when they have made their points, there would be more chance of replying to them, because I missed some of them


as a result of the noise from the Opposition benches. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) asked several questions, and I shall do my best to reply to everything.

Mr. Charles Morrison: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Gentleman to speak twice in one debate without asking the permission of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman has the right of reply.

Mr. Mackie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to start with the points raised by the hon. Member for Torrington, several of which were also made by other hon. Members, particularly that about the danger of too wide a cycle of cereal growth. I do not think we should be too old-fashioned about this. Many farmers in Scotland—and I dare not mention Scotland too often, or I might get into trouble—have been growing barley for 26 to 30 years and their yields are not going down, nor have they been troubled with any diseases.
We all know that some people are opposed to chemical farming, but as well as spraying there are quicker and better methods of cultivation and a lot of experiments which the Ministry is carrying out on behalf of farmers in England at experimental farms, particularly at Box-worth, in Cambridgeshire, show that not only barley but also wheat can be grown successfully if proper varieties are used and proper care is taken in cultivation and everything else. The hon. Member for Torrington also made the point, which I do not think was very valid, about whether we were trying to squeeze cereal growers by this cut. I can assure him that that is not the case. The 1963 cut of £2—only 10s. less than the present cut—had no effect on ploughing up. In fact more ploughing up has taken place since then and, as the hon. Member knows, there has been a record cereal acreage.
It is also not the case, as he suggested, that smaller farmers would be hurt. If there is any hurt at all, it is in proportion to the size of one's farm. I am sorry that it is difficult to give the hon. Member figures for individual areas off the cuff, but I shall see that he gets them in writing.
The hon. Member asked that the form should remain the same and he complimented us, for which I thank him, on the fact that the form that farmers have to fill up is simple. The speed of payment will also be the same. It has been fairly quick. As the hon. Member knows, rotovation is included and remains admissible.
I know that the whole question of chemical treatment of grassland for reseeding—or, for that matter, cropping—is now on the cards. We have not included it yet, but, naturally, we are looking into every method of reseeding. If we feel that it is necessary—and this is the reply also to the hon. Member for Westmorland, who stressed the point—it might come under the grant in due course. I have now been provided with the figures for which the hon. Member for Torrington asked for the various areas, but as they are rather detailed I will send them to the bon. Member so as not to bore the House.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who, I presume, spoke for Scotland, referred to what he called the impact on the agricultural community. What amuses me is the impact upon hon. Members opposite from Scotland. When the hon. Member, of all people, suggests that Scottish farmers require an incentive for ley farming and ploughing up their leys regularly, he is doing them a gross injustice, because he knows perfectly well that farmers in Scotland regard this as a normal way of going on. They do not need this incentive.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The present policy of the Government is restricting prices and squeezing the return to farmers. To help them in the way we suggest would be an aid to efficiency valuable for farmers and good for farming in general.

Mr. Mackie: We have had these points raised by a number of hon. Members. In discussing the Schemes, they have used your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to enable them to make points concerning the Price Review, [Interruption.] I am complimenting hon. Members opposite on the way they use their time in a debate like this. We have had only two Reviews. The average of those two Reviews has been half as good again as the whole nine Reviews of the two previous


Conservative Governments. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like these figures, but they had better accept them.
Over and above that, we have helped the broad run of farmers much more than hon. Members opposite ever did when they were in power. I have a fair list of these things which, some day when we have a proper debate on agriculture, I will read to the House.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns stressed that hill and upland farmers would be hurt. When he thinks of the extra help that we have given to those farmers, including the new cow subsidy, he will not be able to justify what he has said. He simply has not studied what we are doing. He properly made the point that if the amount of grant is reduced but the number of farmers receiving it is probably the same, the costs of administering the scheme are bound to be a little more.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) said that I had made no case. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier. I presume that the hon. Member was present when I made my case. I thought I had made it fairly strongly. The hon. Member asked for the figures for Scotland from the total of 600,000 acres that have been dealt with under Part II. The answer is that 108,000 acres are Scotland's share at £12 an acre.
The hon Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) wanted to know whether a farmer who was getting a subsidy for improving his hill land could get the £12 also. As the hon. Member knows, no farmer gets two subsidies for the same job.

Mr. Monro: I asked about reclamation.

Mr. Mackie: If it is a job of reclamation, the farmer gets the 50 per cent. grant for that, but he cannot get it both ways. I have answered the point about the time between application and ploughing. It will be the same. It will be done fairly quickly. As the hon. Member knows, we have speeded that up.
I am not sure why the hon. Member for Yeovil entered the debate, except that he certainly amused the House. He said that any charge which was put to this side of the House was scoffed at. He can hardly say that I have scoffed at anything which has been said tonight. The hon.

Member also dealt with the language of the Schemes. In some ways, I could not agree more. The language of many Orders and Bills is something that probably the hon. Member and I, as ordinary individuals, do not understand. They have, however, to be put in legal language which can be enforced. As it happens, the sentence in question that the hon. Member read cleverly and sarcastically was, I think, drawn up by the previous Government.

Mr. Peyton: I used no art whatever in reading that abominable sentence. I defy the hon. Gentleman to rise at the Box and read it in any way which makes the language remotely attractive.

Mr. Mackie: Obviously, the hon. Member was not listening to me. I was almost agreeing with him. I was explaining that Statutory Instruments have to be drawn up in a legal manner so that they can be enforced.
The hon. Member also raised the question of the Selective Employment Tax, which is completely out of order in this debate and I do not propose to deal with it. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) was also worried about continuous cereal growing. I do not think that he need worry, because he knows perfectly well that there is a great deal of it in Norfolk. He said that farmers would not get a fair share of the beef subsidy because the acreage standard that we are going to put down—although this has not been finalised—of two and a half acres per cow was high for an arable area. We are putting the subsidy this way because we want the emphasis placed on the poorer land.
He also said that we had done nothing for the beef farmers. We have given them £6 10s. per cow and 10s. per cwt. for beef. What more would he like? Through the Prices and Incomes Board we are trying to keep prices down, which means keeping the costs of farmers steady and this is what we are doing.

Mr. Hawkins: This extra 10s. is not an extra at all. The beef prices is well above it. No extra money is being paid out by the Government.

Mr. Mackie: It would be at present, but it is an extra 10s. and a guarantee. I am not sure that the hon. Member is


right because, if I remember rightly, we were paying out a subsidy last week. I should not say that it was not being paid.
I think that I have answered all the points raised by hon. Members.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I would like to make two points to the hon. Gentleman, and one to the House. In arguing against the point put by one of my hon. Friends, it was said that the cut is the same, whether the farm is large or small. This demonstrates the quite remarkable ignorance of the hon. Gentleman of the situation of many small farmers, such as are represented by my hon. Friends. I rather wish that the Parliamentary Secretary's brother had been here. He would have demolished that argument, lock, stock and barrel. Although the cut may be the same, per acre, the percentage return of the small farmer can be very serious. Clearly, if one has 1,000 acres of arable, and a big farm, a percentage difference between £5 and £2 10s. is minute considered against one's annual trade.
It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman, when he is asking the House to listen to him twice in the course of one evening, and when he had figures in his hand, for which had been requested by one of my hon. Friends, to say that he would not give them in case they would bore the House. It is admirably clear from the debate that many of my hon. Friends are extremely interested. It is also true, having looked at the silent benches opposite, that no one on that side is interested at all. Of course, the Liberal Party is totally unrepresented. That being so, the Parliamentary Secretary was a little less than fair to the House.
The point I particularly wanted to make is to say that in the past we have had a perfectly reasonable custom, that where the House has agreed to take both English and Scottish Schemes at the same time they would be discussed together, so that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, if they were interested, could raise points relating to their respective countries.
It has, in the past, been almost invariable that if an English Minister opened,

a Scottish Minister replied; if a Scottish Minister opened, an English Minister replied. Tonight, we have had the sorry spectacle of a Scottish Minister—one of a team which the Prime Minister described during the election as the best team that had ever been at St. Andrew's House—sitting totally unable to speak, knowing nothing about the subject and contributing nothing to the problems which my hon. Friends have been raising about their own country.
It is a great pity, and inevitably it means that in future we shall have to consider carefully whether to have one or two debates on these sorts of Schemes.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: With the permission of the House, I will reply to one point—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Scottish Minister."] Two of the three points were put to me, and I wish to answer the percentage one. Whatever way one looks at it, I said the percentage was the same——

Mr. Noble: That is exactly what I did not say.

Mr. Mackie: I said the percentage of the reduction was bound to be the same. If 100 acres are ploughed on one farm and 10 on another, the reduction in the percentage is the same.

Mr. Noble: Mr. Noble rose——

Mr. John Mackie: No, I will not give way again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I will not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if the hon. Gentleman will not give way.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A point of order was raised with you just now, when the hon. Gentleman sought to address the House for the second time, as to whether he had a right to do so. You said that he had a right of reply. The point that I wish to put to you now is whether that right of reply continues indefinitely throughout the night.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has only one right of reply, but he prefaced his remarks by asking the leave of the House on this last occasion.

Mr. Noble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With one or two exceptions, I was the nearest to the hon. Gentleman who rose to speak, and I heard no such words.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Peyton rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman asked the leave of the House to speak again. If he did not, perhaps he will do so now.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman sought the leave of the House, it was quite clear that he did not get it. That is the point that I wish to put to you and, in doing so, to reinforce the admirable remarks that have just been made by my right hon. Friend saying that we really expect a reply, if we must endure one, from a Scottish Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Mackie

Mr. Mackie: If the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me ask for permission, may I now make it quite clear to him, if he is a little deaf, that I did ask for permission. Most of my hon. Friends heard me, but I presume that he did not. I hope that I am now speaking sufficiently loud for him to hear me.
I wish to reply to the charge that I was ungracious to the hon. Member for Torrington in not giving him the figures. As nine hon. Members had spoken and only one hon. Member asked for those figures, I thought that it would be more courteous to write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the long list, rather than bore the other hon. Members who had not asked for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1966, draft laid before the House 4th May, approved.—[Mr. Willis.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
This Scheme carries on for 1966-67 the fertiliser subsidy which the House has approved each year since 1952. It differs very little from the 1965 Scheme. It provides for subsidy to be paid on fertilisers bought in quantities of 4 cwt. or more for use on agricultural land or for growing mushrooms, and the amount of subsidy payable depends—as it has in past Schemes—on the amount of nitrogen or phosphoric acid in the fertiliser. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be pleased to hear that there are no changes in the rates of subsidy this year, and only one or two in the Scheme itself.
The most important of the changes empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay contributions to Scottish occupiers. Hitherto this power has been confined to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The change brings this aspect of the administration of the fertiliser subsidy into line with other subsidy schemes. Since 1964, when the responsibility for the initial checking of fertiliser applications was devolved to divisional offices in England and Wales and to area offices in Scotland, Scottish applications have been received and processed by the Scottish Department, whilst the actual payments have been made by my Department.
As a result of this change my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will now have responsibility for payment of the fertiliser subsidy, just as he has responsibility for paying subsidies under the other Schemes. The change is effected by altering the definition of "the Minister" in paragraph 2, while a new paragraph—paragraph 9—amends earlier Schemes so that the Secretary of State can make any payments outstanding under such Schemes after the end of the current financial year.
The only other significant change is the addition of a proviso to paragraph

3 to facilitate the proper application of the rules relating to late claims. I know that the House appreciates the need to have closing dates for subsidy schemes and the need to avoid uncertainties as to their administration. Without the proviso which we are now introducing in paragraph 3, it would be possible for an occupier in certain circumstances to avoid the consequences to him of putting in his application for fertiliser subsidy out of time—that is, more than three months from the date of delivery.
The particular circumstances in which this could happen would be where the fertilisers concerned had not yet been used. Some farmers and their suppliers might argue in such cases that, by simple book entries, they should be enabled to start a fresh transaction for exactly the same lot of fertilisers. In fairness to the vast majority of farmers who put in their applications in proper time—and who greatly assist the day-to-day administration of the Scheme by doing so—we do not see why a very small minority of farmers who do not abide by the rules should be able to avoid the results of their tardiness in this way, and the proviso I have mentioned makes it clear that there is to be no loophole on this point.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that this is a valuable Scheme, and I know that they will be interested in the effects it has had. The years since 1952 have seen constant expansion in the demand for fertilisers. In 1952, the consumption of plant nutrients—that is nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash—was 830,000 tons. The level of consumption is now nearly 1.5 million tons—an increase of 1¾ times. Of the individual nutrients, nitrogen has gone up nearly 2¼ times, phosphoric acid roughly 1⅓, and potash, although it is not subsidised as such, by just over l4 times. We would, of course, expect the use of nitrogen to advance rather more rapidly than that of the other nutrients, and we have no reason to suppose that these relative rates of increase are out of balance with each other.
I do not think that consumption is yet at its peak, and we can expect use to go on rising for some while yet, even if the annual rate of increase for nutrients as a whole might tend to diminish a little each season. The Government do not


dissent from the industry's expectation, in the National Plan, of an increase in expenditure on fertilisers from £125 million in 1964-65 to about £150 million in 1970-71.
There have been other changes in fertilisers since the introduction of the subsidy in 1952. First, more plant food than ever is now being applied in the form of compounds. In 1964-65 the proportion of total use for the first time exceeded 75 per cent. Secondly, there has been a steady increase in the concentration of plant nutrients. This was about 28 per cent, on average, 10 or 11 years ago, and today the average is 38 per cent. Finally, there is increasing variety in types and formulations of fertilisers, including developments in liquid fertilisers and in such forms as anhydrous ammonia. I should like to congratulate manufacturers, merchants and contractors on continuing to show a keen interest in developing the market and giving farmers what they want.
I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the importance of fertilisers to agriculture, and equally the importance of continuing the subsidy. Last year we had a small cut in the subsidy for fertilisers, but this did not have any effect on the increase in use; in fact, we had a considerable increase in use, contrary to the gloomy forecasts of some hon. Members opposite in this debate last year. I therefore ask the House to approve this Scheme.

Mr. Archie Manuel: On a point of order. I want to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a matter which is a very serious breach of courtesy, and possibly a misleading of the House. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in the debate on the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, quoted from paragraph 2(3), which provides that
Any reference in this scheme to any other scheme shall be construed as a reference to that scheme as amended by any subsequent scheme, and if any scheme referred to in this scheme is replaced by a subsequent scheme the reference shall be construed as a reference to that subsequent scheme.
The hon. Member was showing great discourtesy to the Minister of State for Scotland, because he blamed him for those words being in the Scheme. When I looked up the Ploughing Grants——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Manuel: I have not made my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will make his point of order. So far he has not indicated it.

Mr. Manuel: In the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1964, dated 27th May, there appears the same form of words as are used in this Scheme, and therefore it is a grave distortion to say that my hon. Friend wrote them in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is still not a point of order.

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order. Since my good faith has been impugned in the course of raising what you correctly ruled to be a spurious point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should not I at least have a chance of replying to that scurrilous and monstrous attack?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid I must deal similarly with the hon. Member's point.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this Fertiliser Scheme, for it continues the fertiliser subsidy for a further year. I am glad that the rates of subsidy have not been cut, and are the same as under the 1965 Scheme. That is something to be thankful for in these difficult times under a Socialist Government. The only significant change is as it applies to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland will in future pay contributions to the Scottish occupiers. I am sure that that is also welcome, but I should like the Scottish Minister to explain the reason a little more fully and to tell us how much saving will accrue from this. Will it be of benefit to Scottish farmers? I feel that we should have an answer from the hon. Gentleman on this point.
Fertilisers have played a major part in the tremendous development of agricultural production in the last 20 years or so. Our agricultural industry can be proud of its record in increasing productivity. I believe that the increase is about 6 per cent. a year, which is something of which the industry can be proud. The fertiliser subsidy has been


of tremendous value to our farmers and to the country. Surely no one can criticise the part which these subsidies have played and will, I hope, play in the years ahead. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the total cost of these subsidies particularly as it applies to the areas. This is important so that we can compare results.
I also wonder if the Minister can give us the figures as to tonnage of compound fertiliser which is now used as opposed to straight fertiliser, and the tonnage of organic fertiliser on which subsidies can be obtained. I should like to know what is the trend in these compound fertilisers. Are they becoming more concentrated and is this wise? It would also be interesting to hear from the Minister the quantity of fertilisers used in this country as compared with that used on European farms and whether they have any subsidies.
There seems a strange reluctance on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to mention anything about European farmers. It would be interesting to hear what quantity of fertilisers they use and how it compares with the quantity used by our farmers. We may have to take very real notice of this in the years ahead and see how we compare with them.
I notice that paragraph 8 refers to the repayment of contribution due to failure to spread. I ask the Minister how many have had to repay the subsidy in a year. I also notice that the loophole has been closed where a farmer has not claimed a subsidy at the right time. I wonder how many cases are involved and how widespread is the practice? Does it vary according to the region or the county?
I welcome this Scheme and I am certain that most farmers will welcome it. It is indeed money well spent in the interest of our community and the production of home-grown food.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I do not want to delay the House for very long, but I want to raise two points which I think are of fundamental importance in the fertiliser Schemes. They are points which I have raised before but I am disappointed that no action has been taken on them in the last 12 months.
I again draw attention to the iniquitous state of tolerances allowed to fertiliser manufacturers to keep to the publicised analyses. There is an enormous loophole for unscrupulous manufacturers of fertilisers to cheat to a very large extent about the value of their fertiliser. This is increasing as compound fertilisers have become more concentrated in recent years. What discussions has the Minister had on this in the last year? How soon does he hope to tighten the tolerances and stop the present state of affairs by which farmers are taken for a very expensive ride by fertiliser manufacturers working to the bottom end of the tolerance limits?
Secondly, I ask the Minister a point which I raised with him before in a similar debate to this last year. The moment has come when we have a subsidy for nitrogen not to break down the subsidy into types and forms of nitrogen in the compound fertiliser or the straight fertiliser because there is a great temptation for some manufacturers to produce a very large proportion of their fertiliser in the form of urea. The Minister will know that urea is a very inferior form of nitrogenous fertiliser. I am convinced that all compound fertilisers ought to have stated on the bag what proportion of urea is contained in them.
I am disappointed to see that the Minister of State for Scotland is leaving. I hope that he will be back shortly because I am sure that many of my hon. Friend have most important things to say. None of my Scottish hon. Friends has yet spoken, and many of them are here. I am sure that they will all want the Minister of State's ear.
As I said, this specification must be provided because farmers are liable to be taken for an extensive ride by an unscrupulous manufacturer of fertilisers who includes a large proportion of urea—as some do—in the compound. This is certainly not money well spent. I should like an answer on this point from the Parliamentary Secretary or from the Minister of State.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I see no reason to welcome the Scheme, and I protest at the subsidy rate being kept


at this low level. It was reduced last year, and it is a shocking state of affairs that the Government have not raised it to the level which existed under Conservative Governments.
It is very significant and must be read in the same context as paragraph 58 of the annual determination of the Price Review in which fertiliser and lime subsidies are coupled. Lime is the key to fertilising, and if we do not use sufficient lime, half the value of artificial fertilisers is wasted. The reduction in the lime subsidy, which is very severe, will lead to a marked reduction in the application of lime and a serious effect on the lime quarries of Scotland.
I view with grave apprehension the proposal in paragraph 9 that the subsidy shall be paid by the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland, rather than by the Minister of Agriculture, because not one thing that the Secretary of State has done in the last 18 months for agriculture has given Scottish farmers one atom of confidence. I am certain that the Minister of State has at his fingertips all the figures on the amount of fertiliser applied in Scotland last year and its value. I hope that when he answers the debate he will at long last give Scottish farmers some good news.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) about the Scottish aspect of the Scheme, and the precise reasons why the Secretary of State for Scotland is being made responsible for paying contributions under it. I am sure that there is a good reason for the change, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not explain to the House what it was. Is it for administrative reasons? Will it be cheaper? Is it to give the Department of Agriculture in Scotland more control over the Scheme? Or is it that difficulties and problems raised by Scottish farmers under the Scheme will be dealt with more quickly? We should be told the precise reason.
It is encouraging that in this debate, compared with the earlier debate, the Minister of State for Scotland has been getting himself briefed on these points I hope that it means that he will reply

to the debate. Having missed the other debate, it would be courteous to the House and to Scottish hon. Members who have spoken if he replied to this debate.
There are one or two detailed points which I should like to raise. The Parliamentary Secretary expressed great satisfaction at the rate at which fertiliser usage was increasing. His satisfaction surprised me somewhat, because the figures for 1964-65 show that the rate of increase in the use of fertilisers decreased from that in previous years. I quote from the Ministry's own figures. In the case of inorganic fertilisers the difference between the increase in consumption in 1963-64 and 1964-5 is only 6 per cent., an increase of 10,000 tons; whereas the increase in the previous years, between 1962-63 and 1963-64 was 67,000 tons, a very much greater figure. How is it that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied when the rate of increase has fallen so drastically?
The same tale is told when one looks at the consumption of compound fertilisers. Between 1963-64 and 1964-65 there was an increase of 2 per cent., 22,000 tons altogether. The increase in the two previous years 1962-63 and 1963-64 was 59,000 tons. Therefore, there was a very big falling off in the rate of increase in the consumption of fertiliser.
I should be interested to hear, when the Minister of State sums up the debate, as I hope he will, what his explanation is for this falling off in the rate of increase in the consumption of fertiliser. I appreciate that there are certain arguments, such as the poorer season that we had last year, and so on, but I would not have thought that such arguments, alone were sufficient to account for this great reduction.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, agree, there is still tremendous scope for increasing our consumption of fertilisers particularly in the case of grassland. One of the difficulties that concern many of us, particularly those of us in the livestock areas, is that whilst two-thirds of the total farmland acreage is under grass, only two-fifths of the total consumption of fertiliser goes on grassland. Therefore, in relation to the area


of grassland there is a far smaller proportion of fertiliser consumption in these areas.
I am reminded particularly of examples of intensive grassland management overseas, such as in Holland, where a recent comparison was made. If we in this country used the same rates of application as are used in Holland, we would use in a year an extra 250,000 tons of nitrogenous fertiliser which is equivalent to an increase of 50 per cent. over our existing usage. Obviously, the situation is not strictly comparable from the point of view of the type of grassland, the type of farming, and so on, but it gives some indication of the tremendous scope that exists for using fertiliser on grassland.
This is illustrated in our own country. At the upper end of the scale, on farms of high stocking densities and where intensive methods of grassland management are carried out, the rate of usage is seven or eight times the national average. This, I would have thought, would give some concern to the Minister, for surely one should encourage a far greater increase in the use of nitrogenous fertilisers on grassland.
There is no question but that if we can use more fertilisers we can economise in the use of imported feedingstuffs from overseas. It has been estimated that every ton of plant nutrient used is capable of producing 10 tons of food units in one form or another. Therefore, the scope for saving foreign exchange, apart from anything else, is very great indeed.
I should have thought that at this time of world beef shortage this would be a matter to which the Government would give more attention, particularly when one looks at the experiments conducted by such firms as I.C.I. in the use of fertiliser and a higher standard of grassland management in the production of beef. This is one aspect of farming to which much more attention should be paid and one to which the Government should give a great deal more encouragement. This is particularly true at a time when a grant like this is given to encourage efficiency in farming and production from our own farms to save imported foodstuffs from overseas. The Government ought to realise that there is a great shortage of money and of capital in farming as a

result of their policies, and, therefore, money given in this way as a direct aid to efficiency is in the best interests not only of British agriculture but of consumers as a whole.
I was struck by the tremendous satisfaction the Parliamentary Secretary took in saying that no cut had been made. This is an extraordinary attitude. It merely illustrates how accustomed the hon. Gentleman is to making cuts. He takes credit for making no cut, whereas, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) pointed out, there is a very strong case not for just maintaining the status quo but for restoring the rates of grant to what they were in previous years. I share the disappointment felt by my hon. Friends at the fact that the grants have been retained and have not been restored to what they were previously under a Conservative Government.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: This is a most important Scheme affecting most farmers in Scotland, except for a few upland sheep farmers. I wish to raise a detailed point on the administration of the Scheme. I cannot speak with the knowledge which my hon. Friends have of agricultural matters, but it should be noted how we have on this side of the House Members who are prepared to stand up and fight for the interests of the farmer. We have not had from this Government the co-operation which farmers in Scotland enjoyed under past Administrations. I was appalled to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that this was a splendid Measure because there would be no cut. Is it not scandalous that that should be thought cause for satisfaction?
Planning in agriculture has to be directed to the long-term future, and it is quite impossible for farmers in Scotland or England to plan for the longer term when there are constant reductions in subsidy. The one cause for satisfaction which farmers have is that they have so many friends on these benches continually fighting for their interests.

Mr. Manuel: At the General Election, the Scottish farmers did not vote for the hon. Gentleman's party because it was pledged to do away with deficiency payments and guaranteed prices, which would


have swept away all the hocus-pocus the hon. Gentleman is giving us tonight.

Mr. Taylor: It is outrageous that the hon. Gentleman should say that. There is no question but that the farmers of Scotland appreciated our policies. There are many hon. Members on this side representing the farming community, and the important thing is that they represent its bests interests.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Scheme.

Mr. Taylor: Before coming to the point on administration, may I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for North Augus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) increased his majority considerably, and it was the farmers who gave him that increase.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to matters relating to the Scheme.

Mr. Taylor: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point which I wish to raise relates to the transfer of responsibility for payment of the grant from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Secretary of State for Scotland. When I read the Explanatory Note, the matter seemed quite clear. Contributions may be made by the Secretary of State and not, as previously, by the Minister of Agriculture. In other words, it seemed that the Government were accepting that this could be done either way: if people wanted to get the money from the Minister of Agriculture, fair enough, and if they wanted to get it from the Scottish Office, they could do that.
This seemed to be a sensible arrangement so long as it did not cause a great increase in staff. The question of staff is vital. Precisely what increase in staff will this require? I do not make the point lightly. We found out last week that in the Scottish Office there has been an increase of 635 in staff since the Government came to power in October, 1964. That is outrageous. There has been no wide increase in the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. There have been only a few administrative changes similar to those in this Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is completely out of order. If he cannot relates his remarks to the Scheme, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Taylor: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having regard to the substantial increase which has already taken place, I thought it worth pointing out that the Scheme could involve an increase in staff. I will not press the point, but I hope that it will be answered.
The second point which should be clarified is the verification of applications. If someone wants to verify an application, a person authorised by the Minister may require reasonable facilities for the inspection of any fertiliser. I appreciate that someone might ask fox a grant who was perhaps not fully qualified for it, and, clearly, the Minister must protect the public purse and obtain full information, but the Scheme does not state what penalty is involved if these facilities are not afforded. It seems to me that the grant will have been paid before the inspection is called for. The Minister should state what penalty is involved, if there is one, and if it is in the principal Act from which the Scheme stems.
These points are worth considering. This is an extremely important Scheme which will affect almost every farmer in Scotland, except for a few upland sheep farmers. I hope that we shall have these points clarified. Clarification can come only from the Minister of State, Scottish Office, because one of the points is administration within the Scottish Office. It would be scandalous if we had a reply from someone not associated with the Scottish Office.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: A number of my hon. Friends have made an excellent case for the restoration of the cuts made by the Government in the fertiliser subsidy recently. Earlier we debated the Ploughing Grants Scheme, and a number of my hon. Friends mentioned that farmers were suffering a cut in production grants in respect of the ploughing subsidy. Why could not the cut in the ploughing grants subsidy be given back by an increased fertiliser subsidy?
An increase in the fertiliser subsidy would not only be important from the point of view of return to the farmer but even more important from the point of view of good husbandry. Speaking on the Ploughing Grants Scheme, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary remarked that modern agricultural methods had removed to some extent the need for ley farming and that to a much greater extent than in the past we were able to have continuous corn growing. This is true up to a point. But the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must beware, because if we are to have fewer leys there will be a steady decrease in the amount of organic matter in the soil, and, therefore, the only hope of maintaining soil fertility will be by greater application of fertilisers. The Government are giving no incentives to farmers by this Order.
In addition, it is essential that there should be higher application of fertilisers on grassland. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said, grassland is a source of beef supply in particular and of all other types of meat as well. The cut in the ploughing subsidy will result in fewer leys and more grain growing. Surely, if beef production is to be maintained, it will be necessary to get greater output from a smaller acreage of grass and therefore there should be encouragement of more fertiliser use on grassland.
Alternatively, perhaps more beef could come from the hill marginal areas. It is pertinent to remind the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that, more often than not, it is more costly to spread fertiliser on such land, where the going is rough, costs are higher and there is more wear and tear on machinery. Here again, an increase in the fertiliser subsidy would be a considerable incentive to the farmers and would probably lead to increased production.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Minister of State, Scottish Office, has abdicated his responsibilities tonight. On 15th June, 1964, when a similar Scheme was debated, I moved it from the Dispatch Box and the Government reply was given by Mr. Scott-Hopkins, then the hon. Member for

Cornwall, North. On that occasion, there was nothing of particular significance to Scottish fertiliser application or distribution.
But in this Scheme the only significant change made has to do with administration in Scotland. There is virtually nothing else to it. I therefore urge the Minister of State to revert, if not entirely to his previous ways of quite phenomenal verbosity, at least to let the farmers of Scotland know, as he always used to say that they wanted to know, what is going on and how he is looking after them. It may be that he is to reply but I am slightly concerned by the repeated shakings of the head by his Parliamentary Private Secretary who is sitting behind him and who has been gesticulating that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is again to reply.
I have only two points that I wish to put on this Statutory Instrument. In the application form for the subsidy, there is stated a regulation about those who can supply fertilisers. It says:
In order to qualify for contribution. fertilisers must have been purchased from a supplier registered by the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland as the case may be. … Purchases from unregistered suppliers will not qualify for contribution.
Is it, therefore, possible for a merchant who is not registered to get supplies of fertilisers from one of the manufacturers, sell them to a farmer and then subsequently to say, "I am sorry, but, because I am unregistered, although I sold you the fertilisers you are unable to get the subsidy for them"? Of course, this would be a case of "once bitten, twice shy", but I should like the point clarified as to whether it is possible for such a transaction to take place.
Secondly, I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) about the number of staff, if any, extra who will be involved in the Scottish Office in the administration of this new idea, to which I personally take no exception. We have this rather strange figure of 600 extra staff attached to the Scottish Office in order to make present Ministers into what has been described as the best team ever at the Scottish Office.

Mr. Manuel: Nothing to do with this Scheme.

Mr. Stodart: It may well have something to do with it. I presume, and hope for the Minister's sake, that he will be able to say that this extra number is caused by the transfer of these officers from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Scottish Office. It is very relevant.

Mr. Manuel: As the hon. Gentleman is making the issue so important can he, as an ex-Minister at the Scottish Office, give me any estimate of the number of extra civil servants who would be employed at the Scottish Office to operate the change in the fertiliser scheme?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): We cannot on this Motion embark upon a discussion of the increase in staff at the Scottish Office generally.

Mr. Stodart: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a matter of administration which has been transferred to the Scottish Office. Is it not in order to inquire whether more personnel are required? This is exactly what I am seeking to establish from Ministers who have made this transfer. With the best will in the world, it is most unreasonable of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to answer a purely hypothetical question.

11.28 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I had no wish to be discourteous to the House, but in the former debate there was no particularly Scottish point except a request for one figure, which was supplied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has rightly pointed out, the only change in this Scheme concerns Scotland and it is that in future payments will be made from the Scottish Office. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should object to Scottish business being transacted in Edinburgh. I have never yet heard a Conservative in Scotland advocating that it should be administered from Whitehall. I do not know what all the complaint is about. I would have expected hon. Members opposite, who claim to be the spokesmen for Scottish farmers, to welcome this little bit of devolution.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should be grateful if in making this accusation the

Minister would say which hon. Member on this side of the House objected. I do not think that one did so. We have been asking why it was done and we have been waiting all evening for the Minister of State to reply. Now he has risen to his feet, he is not even answering the question.

Mr. Willis: I shall answer. All I am saying is that the whole tenor of the debate has been that this change was very serious. The only Scottish Member who had the courtesy to suggest that he welcomed it was the hon Member for Edinburgh, West. I was rather impressed by that and grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He appreciated that this was being done in the interests of the Scottish farmer. I do not know what his hon. Friend thought. I am sorry that I did not answer the debate on the first Scheme, otherwise I would have knocked hon. Members opposite for six. That, however, is by the way.
Hon. Members have asked why this is being done. It is being done because we expect that it will lead to the more efficient administration of the grant in Scotland, that it will be slightly more expeditious in operation, that the farmers will get their payments rather quicker and also that there will be greater understanding of local difficulties. All these are desirable things in themselves.
I understand that the cost will not be any greater. More people will be employed at St. Andrew's House—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Oh:"]—two or three—but, of course, there will be less work to do in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What is extra at St. Andrew's House will not require to be done in London. Therefore, I understand, there will not be any increased cost.
Shortly before this debate, because knew that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West was interested, I tried to get the exact number of the people to be employed. I am sorry that I could not, get the figure at short notice. I understand that it is difficult to give an exact estimate because of the computerisation of the methods of payment, but I will try again and let the hon. Member know the exact number. There are to be two or three additional people and there is cer tain other work to be done.
I do not think there were any other Scottish points——

Sir Douglas Glover: Will the civil servants who are transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Scottish Office be permanently transferred to Edinburgh, which means that they will move their domicile, or will they travel from London to St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh, with all the additional travelling expenses that will be incurred by the Department? The House would like to know.

Mr. Willis: I do not know whether that is worthy of an answer.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not know.

Mr. Willis: Hon. Members ask whether people will be transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We shall engage our staff in Scotland.

Sir D. Glover: Oh.

Mr. Willis: Certainly. We employ civil servants in Scotland, the same as they are employed anywhere else down here. I have just been handed a note——

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose——

Mr. Willis: Oh, dear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) must resume his seat.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does that mean that some civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture in London will be discharged from their appointment and that other people will be engaged in Edinburgh, or does it mean that there will be a transfer?

Mr. Willis: There is no transfer of staff. There is to be a transfer of the job. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] Just exactly how the necessary civil servants will be engaged is a matter——

Mr. Charles Morrison: When the hon. Gentleman says that there will be a transfer of job but not of staff, is he inferring that there will not be a cut in

staff in either one Department or another, so that the net result will be an increase in staff overall?

Mr. Willis: That is not necessarily true. If there is additional work to be done in the Ministry I have no doubt that people will be employed there. What we are transferring is the work and not the staff. If I might answer the hon. Gentleman's question in the light of a note which I have just received, I understand that another 15 people will be required in administering the Scottish side of the Fertilisers Scheme. I will give the hon. Gentleman exact details. I do not think that there are any other points to be answered which have not been replied to by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I wish to make one short point in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the subject of tolerances. This is a serious matter. I have been on the County Council Public Protection Committee for 10 to 15 years and this subject has arisen on innumerable occasions. We have had cases where the tolerance of certain firms has been on the lowest rung time after time. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will take up this matter with the fertiliser firms concerned and make it easier for county councils, when they have these complaints, to institute prosecutions? We have found the greatest difficulty, when we have reported a case, in getting the Ministry to authorise prosecutions. It is a point which has caused us in Norfolk considerable concern.

11.37 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I wish to make three short points—[Interruption.]—and they will be shorter if there are not so many remarks from the other side of the House. Firstly, I should like to ask the Minister to come clean with the House. He says that it will involve the employment of 15 additional civil servants in St. Andrew's House and at the same time he says that there will be no redundancies in the Ministry of Agriculture. What happens to the 15 people in the Ministry who are being replaced by those in St. Andrew's House?
Is this Parkinson's Law or are they going to lose their jobs? If they do not, there will be an increase of 15 people. Presumably, these 15 people are not being paid some part-time emolument, but full Civil Service rates, and this leads me to think that this is an increase in the overburdening of government by the present Administration.
The second point is that the whole of this Scheme is to do with fertilisers. In the National Plan the Government said that they wished to reduce the number of people employed in agriculture by 2.8 per cent. by 1970. The only way that they will achieve this is by increasing productivity in agriculture.
It seems a strange way to set about it by limiting the amount of fertiliser which is to be used. What is the view of the Government on this? The third point, which I find rather disturbing, listening to the debate—[Interruption.]—If an hon. member wishes to intervene I will willingly give way.

Mr. Ron Ledger: We watched the hon. Gentleman crawl in about 10 minutes ago——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Gentleman Intervenes in a debate he presumably knows something about it. I happen to represent an agricultural constituency. I am perfectly prepared to explain to the hon. Member why I was not in the House earlier. It is something that happens to all hon. Members from time to time.
The third point that I should like to raise with the Minister is the question of fertilisers being sold only by what I would call registered firms. From this side of the House, at any rate—though perhaps not from the other side—that seems to be putting an emphasis on monopoly; in other words, only certain people are allowed to be part of the scheme.
In our last year in office, we brought in the Resale Price Maintenance Bill, which resulted in a great deal more competition. Are we now reducing competition? If we are, in the long run it must be to the disadvantage of agriculture and to the disadvantage of the Government in their National Plan which they want to achieve by 1970. It is reducing competiion if we insist on the larger units in the

industry supplying agricultural undertakings with fertilisers at the most competitive prices. If the smaller units are to be debarred from participating, it is putting the emphasis of distribution into the hands of the bigger units.
I do not think that size automatically means efficiency. Very often, the small firm of today is the big firm of tomorrow, built up because it is more efficient than its competitors. The House has the right to know from the Minister whether the exclusion of small people stems from the desire, which I know is prevalent on the other side, to get the distribution into as few hands as possible and then say that, because they are incompetent, they are going to be nationalised. We on this side think that distribution should be in the maximum number of hands, because that leads to efficiency.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I will do my best to reply to all the points that have been made. I am not very sure what the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) meant by his last point about size. However, I will let that pass.
My hon. Friend has answered the Scottish point, which was the first matter raised by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), so I will leave that alone.
I agree that productivity in agriculture has risen, and that fertilisers have played a big part. That has not a lot to do with the point under discussion. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give detailed area figures. I will send them to him. They make up quite a long list.
He then made a point about the concentration of compounds. In my opening remarks, I gave some figures to the effect that 10 or 11 years ago the average was 28 per cent., and it is now 38 per cent., which is quite a considerable increase. He asked whether that was a good thing. Certainly from the point of view of the handling charges and carriage, it is a very good thing, and all experiments up till now show that the concentration of nutrients in smaller bulk has not done anything but good, because of ease of handling and everything else. I am sure that our researchers will keep us right if they should get to such a high a point that they are not doing their job.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for particulars about comparisons with European farmers, as did the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Such comparisons are not easy. I know that the Dutch use as much as 20 cwts. of sulphate of ammonia. Certainly on the dry side of England we could not use that amount. We might use a fair amount on the wet side of the country, however. But comparisons with foreign countries are difficult, and I doubt whether they have much to do with the Scheme before the House tonight, anyhow.
On the question of the tonnage in 1964-65, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were 2,885,000 tons of plant nutrients, if that is the figure that he wants. I am sorry that I do not have the figure for organic fertilisers. I have said that the figure for concentrates rose from 28 per cent. to 38 per cent.
There are very few repayments. I am sorry that I do not have the exact figures now, but I shall get them and send them to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) referred to the important question of tolerances, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) also raised this point. I was asked what we had done since this matter was last raised. This is a particularly difficult subject, and we have had long and involved discussions about it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to ask us to be autocratic about this. The discussions have not been completed, and we are having great difficulty in getting any agreement about tolerances, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, on the basis of all the analyses which have been made, the tolerance so far has been chiefly in favour of the farmer, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry about that. I am not suggesting that there have not been tolerances the other way, but up to now they have been mainly in favour of the farmer, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if we can improve this tolerance question we will do so.
I was asked about the use of urea as a source of nitrogen. Up to now we have no evidence that urea is not as good a source of nitrogen as ammonia, and it is

therefore difficult to take any action until we get scientific evidence that it is not good enough.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked for an increase in the subsidy. We can all ask for more, but I would just draw attention to the emphasis that we have given to the provision of subsidies. These are not decided on arbitrarily by the Government. We have discussions with the N.F.U. on these matters, and in two Price Reviews we have given half as much again as was given over the previous nine years. These are exact figures, and hon. Gentlemen opposite can check them. We have put the emphasis on discussions with the Union, and the matter has been more or less agreed between us, and therefore it does not arise on the question of giving more for fertilisers.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns said that the use of fertilisers had not risen as much as it had in the previous two years. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that one can do almost anything with figures if one is prepared to take particular ones. If the hon. Gentleman had gone back another year, he would have found that under the Conservative Government the figure for nitrogenous fertilisers fell from 494 to 461. I do not think that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman mean anything at all. There has been a steady rise, and if the hon. Gentleman does not believe my first example he can check the figures for phosphate fertilisers for 1961-62 and 1962-63. He will find that they fell from 485 to 407.
I am not suggesting that those are bad figures while the Conservatives were in power, but I am pointing out that there has been a steady rise, and the small cut that was made last year had no real effect. There has been a steady rise in the use of fertilisers.
I mentioned the question of the Dutch use of fertilisers. The hon. Member made a very emphatic speech on the question of the productive use of fertilisers. I could not agree with him. There is nothing to stop a farmer increasing his use of fertilisers. The farmers who are making full use of fertilisers will continue to do so, and a further grant will not necessarily persuade those who are


not doing so to do so. If the grant was so great under his party's administration why were not they used then? Education is necessary in this matter, and we have increased the Ministry's staff for this purpose. We are increasing the National Agricultural Advisory Service, and the administrative staff behind it is being increased. Many hon. Members have appealed for that, but now they complain about the increase in staff. They cannot have it both ways.
We are all glad to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) take an interest in agriculture. Apart from this criticism of the Scottish Office he asked about the penalties. The penalties are that either the farmer has to pay back the money he has got, or he does not receive the subsidy. There is no other penalty, unless he has committed fraud.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: When the subsidy has been paid and it is found upon investigation that the necessary conditions have not been fulfilled, what kind of penalty is there?

Mr. Mackie: As I have said, he has to pay it back, or it can be taken from the various subsidies to which he is entitled. The money can be got back in that way.
The hon. Gentleman also made great play about my not encouraging agriculture. I made a speech in Scotland the other day, and my remarks there were given completely out of context, as usual. I pointed out to a farmer in the audience that he did not know the facts, and that increased production in Scotland was going on apace in nearly everything—cattle, sheep, pigs, cropping and everything else. It is ridiculous to suggest that Scottish agriculture is being held back.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), the Ministry would not let down a farmer who was misled in the way he suggested.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) came in at the last minute. If he had listened carefully he might have had the point about staff answered. I have answered for my Ministry. The hon. Member made the point that we were limiting the amount of fertiliser used. We are not. Every farmer can

buy as much fertiliser as he wishes. We are not limiting them in any way. The Price Review is fixed every year in this respect, and lays down the fertiliser subsidy for the future. The farmer can buy all the fertiliser that he thinks he use.
On the question of registered firms, it was absolute nonsense for the hon. Member to talk about nationalisation and monopolies, and goodness knows what else. He has only to fill in a form to become a merchant, and he can supply all the fertiliser he wishes.
I think that I have answered all the points that have been raised, and I now hope that the House will accept the Scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.

That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT FINANCES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 20th May].

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(MAINTENANCE OF INLAND WATERWAYS.)

Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I seek to detain the Committee for a few minutes. I must first apologise for not being present during the Second Reading debate last week as I was presiding over an agricultural conference in Scotland, but I have read with considerable interest what was said.
I am also in some difficulty because I might find myself inclined to get out of order. As I spend a good deal of time trying to keep hon. Members in order, I am rather conscious of that fact. I hope, Sir Eric, that I shall be able to stay within the bounds of order and that you will allow me a little latitude to say something about the extension of the five-year period by a further year.
Obviously, in wanting to do this the Government must have some plan in mind. The right hon. Lady the Minister


of Transport has, I believe, promised a White Paper on the subject. This is hearsay, but I believe that she was heard to say that owing to things which took place the other evening she might not produce the White Paper after all. As that probably was quite unofficial and was perhaps said in the heat of the moment, I cannot believe it to be the intention.
However, I feel a little aggrieved with the right hon. Lady because I have written to her on a number of occasions in the last few months asking for some information about what the Government policy would be and, apart from acknowledgments, I have received no answers to my letters. I do not seek to make a party point, but I think it a pity in a Ministry which knows a great deal about my personal interest in this matter that some steps should not have been taken to answer more fully the very reasoned letters I have sent to the right hon. Lady.
Obviously something of importance is coming. Otherwise, this extension of the period would not be asked for. We should have some explanation from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, in more detail of what is proposed before the Committee is asked to pass this Clause. It is a very important Clause—in effect half the Bill. We should be told in detail what lies behind the reasoning of the Government. The hon. Gentleman and the other Parliamentary Secretary, who is sitting beside him, have a sympathetic interest in those who believe that there is a great future for the British canal system. I ask them to be a little more forthcoming and to tell the Committee what their plans will be.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I am most interested in what the hon. Member has to say, but surely the matters which he seeks to raise at this juncture arise properly on Clause 1 and we are now dealing with Clause 2.

The Chairman: As I think the hon. Member recognises, the scope of this Bill is very limited in nature. It seeks to extend for a period of one year the existing immunity of the British Waterways Board from maintenance of certain inland

waterways. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to ask the Minister what is the object of the Clause, but it would not be in order to embark on a general discussion about the future of the canal system.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am much obliged, Sir Eric. I did not intend to do that and I certainly do not intend to trespass beyond the rules of order, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary should say something about the underlying reasons why this period should be extended now. We have not reached the end of the existing period. If we had and the Government were still not quite certain, I could understand that a further year might have to be taken, but we have not yet reached the end of 1967 and, indeed, are not half-way through 1966. Why has the Bill to be extended to 1968 at this stage? I do not understand, unless there is something behind it about which we have not been told. I am glad that the Minister has arrived. She may be able to tell us something about the underlying reasons why she wants to extend the period by one year.
I will not weary the House by repeating what I have said. No doubt she will read it tomorrow. I will content myself by saying that I hope we shall be given some good reasons before we finish the debate which will show what the Government's future policy is likely to be.

12 m.

Mr. John Wells: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for a few moments in Committee because on Second Reading last week I asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for certain clear categorical assurances on Clause 2. Although he sat down at four minutes to 10 p.m.——

Mr. Archie Manuel: It was two minutes.

Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) rose a moment later and said that he had been seeking to address you. Sir Eric, for four minutes.

Mr. Manuel: He was wrong again. He is always wrong.

Mr. Wells: The point is that the Parliamentary Secretary had time last week to answer the few points which I made


I made the only speech on Second Reading clearly directed at Clause 2 and Clause 2 alone. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be kind enough to answer those questions when he winds up this debate.
As the Committee recalls, when the original Bill was discussed in 1962 the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) set out in Standing Committee E, on 6th March, 1962, certain views on this point. As reported in column 1129 he said,
The position at the end of five years will be exactly the same. No loan or grant can be made to the Authority for any revenue deficit which may be incurred. In those circumstances, it is puzzling that there should be this discrepancy between the provisions for the Board and for the Authority. Although the Clause does not say so, I can only assume that the Government anticipate that the Authority will not be properly revenue-earning at the end of five years and that there will be further legislation to allow the Government to continue its deficits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th March, 1962; c. 1129.]
That is what the Parliamentary Secretary's hon. Friend said in Committee four years ago. The point is that by Clause 2 the Government seek to extend for one further year the blanket cover to the Inland Waterways Board, the protection which they have enjoyed under the 1962 Act. It is this protection which they are given by Section 64 and which protects them further under Clause 2, because, as I complained on Second Reading last week, it is Clause 2 which enables them to go on in this wishy-washy way. We simply require some information. Are the Government going to bring in their White Paper in the very near future? I had hoped from the nods and wreathed smiles of the Parliamentary Secretary last week that we were going to enjoy the White Paper before tonight. Will the White Paper set out clearly and in plain terms whether or not the Government support the principle of a trust? We want to know where we stand.
I asked in my Second Reading speech if we could have the White Paper before the Committee stage so that we would have been in a position to put down Amendments if we were dissatisfied with the proposals in the White Paper. As it has not been forthcoming, we are in a very great difficulty. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something. I hope he will be able to

say that, even if the Government cannot support the principle of a trust, at least this further sum of £350,000, which he and the Minister are well aware is required each year, will be forthcoming. As I said last week, it is important to so many people who are involved——

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Sir Eric. With respect, I submit that the hon. Gentleman is not in order in relating his remarks to the financial provisions.

The Chairman: I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Member saying. I hope he will not find it necessary to put his questions any more. I think that if he went any further he would be out of order.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful, Sir Eric. I am not, as the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be aware, referring to the financial provisions of the Bill. I am referring to the underlying spirit of Clause 2, to what the Clause does to protect the Board, and the fact that there is this financial requirement for the future. Clause 2, which we are debating, protects the Government and the Board. The Government have got to legislate in the very near future. This is why I quoted the speech of the hon. Member for Craigton. I could have gone on for 10 more columns of HANSARD, but I spared the Committee that. It it all there and if the Paraliamentary Secretary doubts it I shall launch forth.

The Chairman: The hon. Member would be out of order if he were to launch forth.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to you, Sir Eric. The fact remains that I hope we shall have an answer to the questions that I have put to the Parliamentary Secretary.
If I may make one final point, as I said last week, there is not only this vast number of private people who enjoy using the waterways and are involved in investment therein. There is also the Rural Industries Loan Fund which has put out a considerable sum of money ——

The Chairman: There is nothing whatever in this Clause to which the Loan Fund has any relevance at all.

Mr. Wells: Sir Eric, with the greatest respect, I am afraid that you cannot be aware of the precise nature in which the


Rural Industries Loan Fund has set out its money. In 1964——

The Chairman: I may not be aware of that, but I am aware of the scope of this Clause. This Clause merely extends the immunity of the British Waterways Board for a further period of 12 months.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to you, Sir Eric. The immunity which this Clause extends to the British Waterways Board enables that Board to carry on leaving many people who operate canalside businesses in a further state of uncertainty for a further 12 months. What my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and many other hon. Members want to know is where do these people who operate canalside businesses stand? Not only are these people worried, but the Rural Industries Loan Fund——

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will look at Section 64 of the 1962 Act which is being extended by Clause 2 of this Bill, he will see that it is limited to giving an immunity to the British Waterways Board against rights relating to navigation. It is limited to that.

Mr. Wells: I apologise, Sir Eric, but the point remains that it is this immunity which the Board now enjoys which enables it to continue what many people who take great interest in the canals would view as malpractice. If the Clause is not passed extending the immunity for a further year, there will be many cases of complaint coming before the courts.
Not only is there private uncertainty but there is also uncertainty for a Government Department, and it is this uncertainty that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up.

Sir Douglas Glover: There are several inland waterways in my constituency. Many people are concerned about the future of our inland waterways. I shall keep in order on the Clause, Sir Eric, and I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. This is not a party matter. It is a matter which affects all hon. Members. I well remember how one of my political opponents, Mr. Jack Jones, who was Member for Rotherham, a man for whom I had enormous respect, always tried to catch the eye of the Chair whenever we had a

debate on this subject because he was passionately interested in what happened to inland waterways.
I do not criticise the Government for wanting to have this extension of immunity until 1968, but I must remind all hon. Members that we are asked to sanction the allocation of £350 million or £360 million under the Bill, and, once we have done it, we shall as a House have far less power over the Executive than we should have if we did not pass the Bill. If the Minister next week produces a White Paper containing proposals affecting inland waterways with which the House would disagree, our position will be far weaker if we have already voted the money.

The Chairman: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is nothing whatever in Clause 2 about voting money.

Sir D. Glover: I accept that, Sir Eric, and I said that I would try to keep in order. It is a narrow point. The fact is that we are asked to vote money under the Bill, though not under Clause 2.

The Chairman: Order. We are not dealing with the Bill. We are dealing with Clause 2, which has nothing to do with the voting of money.

Sir D. Glover: But, with the greatest respect, Sir Eric, a Bill runs through even the Committee stage, and there are implications flowing from Clause 2. What is in the Government's mind? As I say, I do not regard this as a party matter, but the right hon. Lady is to bring forward proposals affecting inland waterways quite soon. We ought to have those proposals before us before we pass Clause 2, because we do not know why she wants this delay. The reason may be controversial or it may be accepted by all of us. We may congratulate the right hon. Lady on the wisdom of her proposals, but at the moment we are being asked to accept a year's delay when we do not know what her proposals for inland waterways are.
Almost every hon. Member has an inland waterway in his constituency. There is growing interest in inland waterways for navigation, for boating, for fishing, and so on. The Committee has a right to know what the right hon. Lady has in mind before we pass Clause 2.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order, Sir Eric. May I ask for your guidance? Could you tell me whether it is proposed to take the Third Reading of the Bill tonight? It is not on the Order Paper, but I was wondering whether you would take it, and, if so, whether we could raise the matter in more detail then.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. John Morris.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. John Morris: Mr. John Morris rose——

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Further to the point of order, Sir Eric. If the Third Reading of the Bill is moved——

The Chairman: Order. At the moment we are in Committee, discussing the Committee stage of a Bill, and it is quite inappropriate and out of order for an hon. Member to ask the Chairman of the Committee what is going to happen about the Third Reading of a Bill.

Mr. John Morris: The present legislation runs out in 1967, and the object of the Clause is simply to preserve the status quo pending the working out of a comprehensive future policy for the waterways in the light of the Board's report giving facts about the waterways which are known to hon. Members. This will undoubtedly involve legislation which it will not be practicable to introduce until the 1967-68 Session.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I protest against the taking of the Third Reading of the Bill tonight when we have not had a proper explanation from the Government as to what their policy is. I will not weary the House at this late stage by going into a great many reasons why we should vote against the Third Reading, but I suggest to my hon. Friends that if the Third Reading is proceeded with now we should divide against it.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I very much regret that when the almost cursory discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill took place on Friday I was not able to take part, though I was present during most of the Second Reading debate.
I echo some of the discontent and concern then expressed by my hon. Friends about the way in which the Bill has been introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) once described the policy of the Labour Party as being a menu without prices. Now the Government have gone a great deal further than that. They are asking us to pay the bill without even showing us a menu, and in doing so they are treating the House with contempt.
I do not want to weary the House by repeating for the Minister the speech which she made on Second Reading, but I invite the attention of the House to the very scant mention which she made on that occasion of the financial significance of the Bill. We are asked to vote between £300 and £400 million of public money to finance a policy the details of which we have not yet been told. I remind the House of the right hon. Lady's words on Second Reading:
That is why I have to ask the House, first, that the period during which revenue deficit grants can be made should be extended for another year, that is, to December, 1968, and, second, for an additional sum of £350 million to be provided—enough this time to cover all possible contingencies … by voting this sum, we are not assuming that it will be spent. On the contrary, I hope that, and I know that the whole House hopes, that British Railways will be able to do with much less.
If there is any foundation for her hopes that this vast sum will be more than sufficient, she should let us into her confidence and tell what it is. The right hon. Lady went on to wave away the difficulties with which she is facing the House and added:
… it is extremely difficult to budget with certainty as to what it will need to discharge that obligation. …
The House is entitled to hear a great deal more than it has done. If the right hon. Lady is to justify the whole of her programme on the need to provide what she describes as socially essential purposes, then, while we would not take exception to such purposes, we are


entitled to some definition from her as to what she regards as "socially essential purposes.
I do not want to go into detail about the possibly nightmare Committee she is putting in charge of London Transport matters, although we await what it will do with a good deal of apprehension, but in referring to the target set the London Transport Board by the Conservative Government, she said:
That represented a net return of about 5 per cent. on average net assets, after depreciation but before interest. That was to be the minimum return which the Board was to produce.
In practice, the target has proved impossible to reach.
Does the right hon. Lady really think that a target of 5 per cent. on net assets before depreciation is too steep for a nationalised industry to achieve? Again and again, there is the classic instance of the House being faced with a huge demand from a nationalised industry which, by the confession of those who staunchly advocate public ownership, is quite unable to earn even this modest target.
I have only one more quotation from the right hon. Lady's Second Reading speech:
I have described the scope of the Bill.
That is a euphemism.
I suggest that it represents the absolute minimum that is required so that the necessary finance will be available for the three Boards in question in the period to the end of 1968. …;"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1355-63.]
Without being discourteous to her, I think that that is the last thing she did. She never really gave us any information on which we could possibly proceed to vote this huge sum of money, unless, of course, she is treating, as Governments are wont to treat only too often, the House of Commons as a mere rubber stamp. Recently the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made rather a long speech about conveniences. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not treat the House in such a way.
I hope that she will give her attention to the White Paper Command 2974, Loans from the Consolidated Fund, because I want to ask her to what extent, if at all, the Bill alters the calculations in the White Paper

in respect of the Railways Board and the London Transport Board. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady or the Parliamentary Secretary has a copy of the White Paper, but I will gladly lend mine if not. Paragraph 10 on page 10 says that the Railways Board requires a total capital of £116 million during the financial year 1966-67, of which £94 million is to be financed out of internal resources and £20 million from Exchequer borrowing and £2 million from other sources. Does the Bill in any way alter the facts which were put before the House in that White Paper?
The following paragraph deals with the London Transport Board and I call the right hon. Lady's attention to it because it reveals a somewhat odd situation. We are told that the total capital requirements of the Board will be £29.2 million for the year of which from internal resources will be provided minus £700,000, the total capital requirements being £29.2 million and the total borrowing £30.1 million. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to explain how that comes about.
I turn now to some of the arguments deployed very properly during our debates on the Bill. One of the main things concerning hon. Members on this side of the House is that, without any checks and without even the minimum of information, we are here embarked on a course which clearly involves a massive subsidy to nationalised industries and we have been told nothing to justify it and been given no details whatever.
Ministers must face the fact that these nationalised industries make very heavy demands upon our limited resources and in these circumstances they must accept that a certain scrutiny of these demands by the House of Commons is not only right but necessary. I have been rather surprised by the cursory manner in which the Minister has treated the House during these debates. On Second Reading she spent a good deal of her time chiding the Conservative Government with what she regarded as their faults. If she expects us to listen to that kind of thing, in return she has to listen, or at least go through the appearance of listening, to arguments which to us seem a great deal more serious, and at the moment she is giving me the impression that she is not in any way concerned


with anything which can be said from this side of the House. That is always an unwise attitude for Ministers to take, because sooner or later their utter disregard of arguments which to us appear to be in the national interest catches up with them.
We believe that the sort of scrutiny which we have been denied on this occasion is very important. I should like immediately to be assured that when this White Paper reaches us, the Government will afford a full opportunity for debating in detail the policy which we are now financing and are apparently to finance without knowing any details whatever.
One of the points which, I believe, the Government have entirely failed to understand is that when they advocate the public ownership of an industry so that it can be controlled by the State, what happens is that the Government do not get control of the industry. The industry gets control of the Government. The industry has really got the Government fairly and squarely where it wants it and is free to make any possible demands upon them.
We on this side are almost always rebuked if we question the need for merely pumping out further public funds instead of looking, as we are entitled to do. for at least an effort to increase efficiency. The test for which the general public look is reliability of service. Under that heading come such things as punctuality, comfort, cleanliness and the rest and, in the case of goods, safe arrival.
I do not wish in any way to embarrass those who have the difficult task of managing the railways. Nevertheless it is, unfortunately, a fact that freight deliveries are not as reliable as they should be. A great many systematic losses ate caused by pilfering of an organised kind. These are matters upon which the future of the railways depends and which certainly should be fully discussed before the Government come to the House of Commons and ask for an enormous sum such as this to be given to them without more ado.
I believe that we have had from the transport unions far more good intentions than deeds. There is no clearer example of this than the liner trains, a problem which was referred to in Committee last week. My hon. Friend the Member for

Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) raised this point effectively and successfully but without, apparently, disturbing the Minister's complacency. The Minister herself said:
That is my policy, and I am pursuing it. I am pursing it successfully, and I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite drop their wrecking tactics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1966: Vol. 728, c. 1835.]
What the right hon. Lady hailed as this move forward on liner trains amounts to is that the National Union of Railwaymen is dictating terms to railway management. [Interruption.] I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who will speak on behalf of the Opposition, will have been impressed —or, perhaps, oppressed—by the fact that the Minister is simply here out of a sense of duty to the House——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Peyton: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I have gone too far. What I hoped very ambitiously to do was to attract the right hon. Lady's attention to the debate on the Bill. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peyton: The point surely is that the National Union of Railwaymen, in a matter to which Dr. Beeching at least attached enormous importance, is seeking to dictate the terms upon which liner trains should be used. Together with my hon. Friends, I think that this is wholly wrong. The right hon. Lady was given a chance to reply to this point and she has failed to do so.—Perhaps I could refer to the words of my hon Friend the Member for Worcester, who said on 20th May—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions do not shorten speeches.

Mr. Peyton: I am exceedingly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having given such a necessary lesson, with more brevity than I could have done. I was referring, when I was rudely interrupted, to the words of my hon. Friend. He attempted to tell the right hon. Lady where her duty lay. He said that she:
… should have had the courage to stand at the Dispatch Box and say to the N.U.R. 'You are imposing a most restrictive practice. You are keeping freight away from the railways. You are stopping the advance of the


whole liner train programme. You are asking for an extension of public ownership of vehicles which is unnecessary and unreasonable.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1836.]
I am glad that my hon. Friend made this point with such force, and sorry that his eloquence and efforts were wholly unsuccessful in extracting a reply from the Government. Where do the Government stand on this? Are they condoning the restrictive practices operated within this valuable scheme? Are the Government backing the N.U.R. in restricting what could be a tremendously valuable asset to the railways?
It appears to us that the Minister gleefully accepted this restricting attitude of the N.U.R. All that she could do was to accuse the Opposition of wrecking tactics. I agree with what my hon. Friend said on that occasion and I am sorry that the Government were unable to reply to his argument.
I want to turn to London Transport, which is plainly an organisation of immense importance to this vast capital city. Yet what do we see? There have been virtually no changes, except for the provision of larger and larger buses. Very little thought is given to the convenience of the travelling public. I have always been astounded that no one has tried to work out a system which divorces the transport of the centre of London from that on the periphery. As long as we have this present system, the blocks which occur on the periphery are communicated and added to in the middle, and all of this has a cumulative effect.
The time has come when these nationalised industries——

Mr. Russell Kerr: The time came half an hour ago.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is gaily reminding me that the time came half an hour ago. Time for what? When the hon. Gentleman has been here a little longer he will realise that interventions are the last way in which to shorten debates.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me, I will be back to the subject of London Transport and the nationalised industries in general.
In the past, I have had discussions with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary which were not unfriendly. On this occasion, I want to say to him that we on this side deplore the practice, which so often repeats itself, of a nationalised industry coming for more money without being forced, as a privately-owned industry would be, to look inside itself for increased efficiency and to find from its own resources a greater contribution to its capital requirements.
We voted against the Bill on Second Reading, in my opinion rightly. I hope very much that my hon. Friends may consider doing so again tonight, unless we get some answers which are much more satisfactory. [Interruption. I recollect that, 10 years or so ago, even the tiniest interruption from Government benches provoked a great tirade of speeches from this side. We have not had all that amount of practice yet. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, including those on the Treasury bench and particularly Parliamentary Secretaries from the Ministry involved, care to make these kinds of interventions, they must blame themselves for the reactions which, inevitably and increasingly, will come from this side.
I am arguing a serious point, and I am not in the least concerned with whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agrees with it or not. If the nationalised industries require enormous sums of money from the national resources, as they do, they must justify it. In the course of justification, they must be able to show that they have done their utmost to increase their efficiency. We, for out part, have our doubts multiplied when we see unnecessary, foolish and artificial restrictions imposed upon quite hopeful means of improving the status and results of those industries.
I will not detain the House any longer—[Interruption. I am sorry; I was not allowed to finish that sentence. I was about to say that I will not go on any longer, unless I am challenged to do so. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are so interested in our views, I will be very glad to continue, if not on this occasion, upon many others in the future.
Meanwhile, I hope that I may ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, without being unduly optimistic, if he will answer some of the questions that I have put to him.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I wish to make a very short speech, and it is very unfortunate that, in saying the few words that I want to say, I have to detain so many hon. Members opposite. It is even more unfortunate that, owing to the lateness of the hour, many hon. Gentlemen opposite who could make quite good contributions are prevented from doing so, if only because of their concern for their fellow hon. Members.
I looked reasonably favourably upon the Bill on Second Reading. It seemed as though only an additional sum of money was required and additional time before the question of the deficits was considered. I was concerned to read in the report of Friday's debate the various explanations given as justification for the Bill. In the light of those explanations, I hope that the Bill will not receive a Third Reading.
One explanation that we had from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was that the Bill was required as a stop-gap. His actual words were:
… we must have stop-gap legislation of this type to ensure that British Railways and the other industries have money with which to carry out their existing statutory requirements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1757.]
In other words, it seemed as though the sum of £350 million and the right to have a deficit going on until December, 1968, was being asked for as a stop-gap measure. I suggest, with respect, that when we are authorising sums of this nature and giving the British Railways Board what amounts to a free hand until December, 1968, we are doing more than simply approving a stop-gap measure. I feel that we should be particularly careful when dealing with a Bill of this sort which concerns a nationalised industry when we do not have the normal controls which this House has over other forms of expenditure.
I accept that with a nationalised industry we must have a certain amount of administrative freedom, but, on the other hand, when we are approving the expenditure of large sums of money, I think that we should take steps to find out what the Board's policy will be. We know that general policy decisions have to be made by the Government. The Government have given a few indications

of what their policy will be, but these indications are inadequate. We have no clear indication of their policy, and those indications that we have had are not very satisfactory.
The only general indication that we have had is the Minister's statement, and statements from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Labour Party, and British Railways under a Labour Government. will be concerned with providing an integrated transport policy. This has been said many times, but I do not know precisely what this means.
The other indication that we have had is that the Government, and the British Railways Board under this Bill, will be concerned with maintaining socially essential services. Here again we have had no indication of precisely what this means. As we are being asked to provide this large sum of money, and to give the Board a free hand until December 1968, I think that the time has come for us to be given a clear statement of policy.
We have been promised a White Paper. I think that the right course would have been to bring in a stop-gap Bill to provide a few million £s to tide British Railways over the next few months until the White Paper was published, because I think that it is wrong of the Government to ask us to authorise the expenditure of this substantial sum of money without giving us a clear statement of policy.
We cannot expect, tonight, to be told the policy which will be outlined in the White Paper, but there are one or two questions, which the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might care to answer, which arise out of the statements they have made during the passage of this Bill through the House both on Second Reading and in Committee.
Will a substantial proportion of this money be used to provide a major extention of British Railways road haulage fleet? I think we all know that there will be an extension of it. Both the previous Labour Government and this one have accepted that there must be some expansion of British Railways road haulage fleet, but what we want to know is how far that extension will go, and for what purpose. Is it the Government's intention to expand the road haulage fleet to such an extent that there will be


no need for private road hauliers in the liner train depots? This is a vital issue, and I think that we must have a clear statement on whether the money being provided by this Bill will be used for this purpose. Is this one of the changes in policy——

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I should like your advice. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with a situation in which he envisages the expansion of British Railways road services. The Bill deals entirely with revenue expenditure. The point which the hon. Gentleman is dealing with would involve capital expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has not the sense to know that. Would you tell him so?

Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order. Any capital expenditure on motor vehicles affects revenue account because of depreciation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member must leave it to the Chair to keep Members to order.

Mr. Taylor: I assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that I am getting through this as quickly as possible. I have no wish to detain the House, but I have not previously spoken on this Bill.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has not been here all the time.

Mr. Taylor: I did not take part in the Second Reading debate, and I did not speak once during the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman is a conscientious Member and he attends here regularly, but on this Bill I have been here as regularly as he has and I have read the relevant documents with great care. I maintain that we need a clear statement of the Government's intentions with regard to the liner train depots. We know that the Government intend to expand the British Railways road haulage fleet, but what we do not know is to what extent and for what purpose. Is it the Government's intention merely that British Railways should have a larger share of the traffic coming into the liner train depots, or is there to be a total lock-out of private hauliers?
The indication we had on Friday was a rather alarming one. It looked as

though the difference between the needs of British Railways road haulage and what was required by the customers would be made up by private transport hired specifically for the purpose by British Railways road haulage. If so, it would appear that the Government are aiming at a monopoly of road haulage facilities for liner trains by British Railways. Whether this is right or wrong is not a matter for this debate, but we are entitled to have a precise indication of the Government's policy in this matter.
We have had guidance from previous debates. The right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser)—I greatly admired him for the speeches he made on transport—was clear and specific in his view of this problem, but the right hon. Lady has not given such a clear indication. It may be that she feels that to give some indication might prejudice negotiations, but the indications she has given show a change of policy, and this is not something that hon. Members on this side of the House accept.
There are two other small points. Can we have an indication from the Government whether they are in favour of a technically developing or a stagnant railway service, and whether they are thinking in terms of new transport on rails, including monorails, for the future, or are not thinking about it at all? Have they made any studies about the feasibility——

Mr. Speaker: That is not in order in a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Taylor: I did not intend to go beyond the rules of order. But have any technical advances been made? Are the Government thinking of new forms of rail transport? I hope that the Government will answer the specific points that I have made.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: I am glad to have had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, this evening, because I have sought to direct my remarks throughout all the stages of this Bill entirely to Clause 2. I very much deplore the lack of manners shown by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when he had two, four or however many minutes it was last Wednesday but did not seek to use them to say anything about the inland waterways provisions. When we debated


Clause 2 earlier this evening in Committee I had virtually no answer from the Minister herself, who appeared to be asleep throughout. No doubt I was very boring. [Interruption.] Her eyes were shut. It seemed to me that she was asleep.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Third Reading debate. We are not discussing the right hon. Lady's eyes.

Mr. Wells: My point is simply that it is a disgrace that the Treasury Bench and their supporters, who have many constituents and many friends—just as we do on this side of the House—among people who are interested in the inland waterways, should seek to give no answer on this most important point. The friends of the inland waterways want to have the uncertainty cleared up once and for all. Last week I asked the right hon. Lady categorically whether she or the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what proposals were contained in the White Paper in respect of waterways. It is no good the right hon. Lady yawning and going to sleep again. What we want is an answer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Manners."] I suggest to the hon. Member whose name and constituency I forget, but who is wearing spectacles and is going a little bald, that when he asks me to exert manners he should know that the right hon. Lady should not yawn, because there are many people——

Mr. Speaker: On the Third Reading we discuss what is in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will keep to that.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but this is what astounds me to a degree, that the Treasury Bench seem incapable——

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member has said that before.

Mr. Wells: The Treasury Bench seem incapable——

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member has said that before. Tedious repetition.

Mr. Wells: The Treasury Bench seem incapable of telling us what is in their mind.

Mr. Albert Murray: We know what is in the hon. Member's mind.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Member seems to know what is in my mind. Tonight I am directing my mind to trying to elicit from the Government their intentions under Clause 2. We want to know what they intend to do to clear up the uncertainty which Clause 2 puts off for one further year. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) four years ago—[An HON. MEMBER: "A good man."] A very good man. In Committee on the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Member for Craigton, on 6th June, 1962, in Standing Committee E, as reported in column 1128 and subsequent columns with which I shall not weary the House—[Interruption.] The trouble with the junior Minister of the Board of Trade who has responsibility for the boat building industry is that he seems to think that I am seeking to mount some exercise and waste the time of the House. He is completely mistaken. If instead of cheering himself on with inane "Hear, hears" he would seek to protect that industry for which he is responsible——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the point he is seeking to make.

Mr. Wells: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make a very short point and hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not seem capable of realising that this is a serious matter. They seem to think that it is a funny joke. There are many people in the country who have the well-being of British waterways at heart. Clause 2 of the Bill perpetuates for one further year the uncertainty under which all users of British waterways labour.
It is not only private citizens, but a sub-Government Department—the Rural Industries Loan Fund—which in the past two or three years has set up modest sums of public money to assist the inland waterways industry, and they are in a state of uncertainty. The right hon. Lady has seemed to think that she can promise a White Paper and yet not produce it. She is asking us to give a blank cheque for a very large sum and asking us to consider that this uncertainty created by Clause 2 should go on for a further year. We on this side of the House want to


know quite clearly where the Government stand on this. She is aware that a large body of people would like to see the non-profit-making waterways hived off into a separate trust or some similar body. Furthermore, she is aware from the report produced last December, called "The Facts About the Waterways," that it is necessary to provide only about £1 million a year to keep the waterways going. If instead of the miserable Clause 2, she would say categorically that the Government will keep the waterways going, this would clear up a great deal of uncertainty and assist many people to know where they stand.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now asking for something which is outside the Bill. He cannot do that on Third Reading.

Mr. Wells: It was for this reason that I expressed the hope that the White Paper would be introduced before the Committee stage. I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will try to keep within Clause 2, but the fact remains that we should like this point cleared up and it must be within the competence of the Minister and her two Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to do so tonight.
I will leave the waterways for a minute and turn to the commuter services, which affect so many of us, and the services of British Rail to the West Country, about which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) spoke so eloquently on Second Reading. Unfortunately, we seem to have had no representative of the Liberal Party here during Committee stage today or Third Reading. The commuter services which affect many constituencies are in grave danger and we should like a further explanation of what the Government intend to do. They are asking for a blank cheque for the expenditure of a large sum of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said on Second Reading, we should much rather have been asked for a sum year by year or period by period. A new look at the commuter services is badly needed. I hope that the Minister will do what she can to provide this within the foreseeable future.

1.3 a.m.

Sir D. Glover: It will no doubt be within the recollection of the House that this is the second speech which I have made on the Bill, largely by the courtesy of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) who, if he is speaking on transport, should realise that in a transport system time-keeping is the essence. If he had moved out of the station at the right time there would not have been time for another train to pull in. I have no apology to make to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Bill.

Sir D. Glover: I had hoped that the House would allow me that explanation, but I will come to the Bill and I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. Indeed, I go a long way with the right hon. Lady in certain aspects of what she said in her speech. For instance, in 1954, which is a long time ago, speaking on transport, I said that there was a long future for the commuter services. When the Conservative Party were in power I always opposed any proposals to close down commuter services, because I have always appreciated that with the growth of the traffic problem the commuter services were an essential part of our transport system. But I cannot take the same attitude on liner trains, which I also advocated in my speech in 1954. We still have not got them operating. I am quite certain that if we are to have an efficient transport system it is essential that we get liner trains operating, taking in all freight, no matter who brings it along, and that it should not be restricted to British Road Services.
My criticism of this Bill is far more fundamental, and if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few words to the newer Members of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are debating a Bill which is giving the Government the right to lend £350 million to British Railways—Z—

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): The hon. Member is not supposed to speak directly to hon. Members.

Sir D. Glover: I said that I wished to address them through Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member, who appears to be


sunk without trace, is unable to rise in his place to make his interjections, it will not be many moments before Mr. Speaker calls him to order.
We are dealing with a Bill which gives the Government the right to lend £350 million. I am not for one moment suggesting that the right hon. Lady will not be dealing with a deficit up to 1968. I am not criticising the suggestion that there is some need for a Bill to give her the power to lend British Railways some money. If the present plan for British Transport was to run on unchanged, I would not oppose the Bill. But the right hon. Lady has already made it quite clear to the House that not in months, but almost in hours—at the very longest, days—she is going to bring to the House a White Paper. That White Paper will presumably have in it proposals for a somewhat drastic alteration of the present system of transport.
We could pass tonight, I think without any opposition, a Bill giving the right hon. Lady the authority to lend British Railways £60 million or £70 million to cover the deficit to the end of this year. This is all the urgency at the moment. But, in fact, what we are being asked to do is to sanction a borrowing power which the right hon. Lady says is in excess of anything which she visualises British Railways will need. But then, this money, having been voted by the House, is going to be used for policies of which the House at the moment is quite unaware.
Of course, it is very difficult when speaking from the Opposition benches, as many hon. Members on the other side have found for many weary hours, and as many of them will find for many weary years before they cease to be Members, to impress the Government that it is part of the duty of the House of Commons—I would have thought it was its fundamental duty—not to give the Executive the power to do things without proper debate in the House. The House of Commons is governed largely by precedent, and in this Bill we are creating a precedent which will be quoted against hon. Members by my Government when it is in power——

Mr. Mason: When.

Sir D. Glover: —when it is in power. It will be said that in 1966 the House of Commons did a certain thing which

established this precedent, and then hon. Members opposite will realise that they at that moment of time were not acting as they ought to have done as hon. Members of this House. They are giving the Executive the power to use funds knowing that there is going to be a vast change in their policy towards transport, but knowing equally well that the Government having been voted that money, the House of Commons will have far less control over the Executive than they would if the Bill had not been proceeded with until the White Paper had been produced.
I do not criticise the right hon. Lady for this Bill, though it provides for the borrowing of more than is necessary in present circumstances. I do not criticise her for intending to bring in a White Paper which, no doubt, I shall not approve. That is a perfectly ordinary and understandable part of the process of Parliamentary Government. I do not base my criticism on my expectation that the White Paper will contain plans which I shall regard as ill considered and detrimental to the national interest. Hon. Members opposite, no doubt, at least officially, will say that those plans are wise, forward looking and good for British transport. But that is not the issue here.
When a Government have decided to alter their policy in regard to a large sector of our national life and intend to put controversial proposals before the House, it is not democratic to bring in at this stage a Bill to provide for borrowing powers to the tune of £350 million which will inevitably reduce the power of the House to influence the Government. I do not expect to carry hon. Members with me into the Lobby at this time of night, but they should realise that, when they have given the Bill a Third Reading and empowered the Executive to do certain things, they will have done something, quite unwittingly, to reduce the prestige and power of the House of Commons to control the Executive, be it a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Executive.
The Government are asking the House to give them a rubber stamp for £290 million—I accept that they need £60 million immediately—and if hereafter their proposals for British Rail are contrary to the views of hon. Members


opposite, hon. Members will find that they can do nothing about it because they will already have voted the money. They will have voted the Government a blank cheque. Hon. Members opposite hope that they will be able to support the White Paper proposals when they come, but they may find that they cannot. They will have no power to influence the Executive at that stage. This is the issue, and, if we pass the Bill now, the House of Commons will once again have reduced its power and ability to control the Executive, whether that Executive be of the Left or the Right.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is most encouraging to witness the increasing interest in the Bill shown by hon. Members opposite as evidenced by their much greater attendance in the Chamber on this occasion than hitherto.
At this late hour, I shall confine myself to putting certain questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. Do the calculations which have been given during the debate still stand, having regard to decisions which have been taken or which are later to be taken? It is reported that there is likely to be a pay rise of 61 per cent. for people employed on the buses. Do the calculations given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about deficits in London Transport of £5 million and £51 million for the two years thereafter take this into account, or will this basically alter the calculation?
Also, was the original estimate about the amount required worked out on the basis that liner trains would be operating on an increasing scale and the terminals would be made fully available to private hauliers? If the calculation was made on this basis and the position of the National Union of Railway men is to continue, the figures will be very different.
Finally, I would add one basic comment on the Bill and our attitude to it. From the very beginning of the debates on it we have argued that it was wrong for the Government to ask for sufficient money to finance what looks to be an increasing deficit for a period of two and a half years. There has never been a debate on a Bill where more questions have remained unanswered, and they have

remained unanswered basically because the Government are about to announce their new transport policy and are unwilling to give any details of it before the publication of the White Paper.
Hon. Members opposite may be correct in believing that the Government are very wise in not publishing or leaking information before publication of the White Paper, but they are wrong if they feel that it is wise to seek to obtain from the House £366 million to finance a transport policy which may well be changed within three weeks without the House knowing what that change will be. It is a thoroughly irresponsible policy. If we find in a few weeks' time that the House has been misled by the Government asking for this enormous sum of money for two and a half years in order to pursue very different policies from those being embarked on at the present time, we shall certainly move the strongest possible censure on the Minister for having so misled the House.
We regret that our Amendment on Second Reading was not accepted. It would have given all the money required for the continuation of the present policy with British Railways and enabled the House to make a proper judgment as to whether it was right to vote future sums. As that Amendment was not accepted, we have to accept the Third Reading because British Railways could not otherwise continue throughout the rest of this year. But we do so with the gravest suspicion, and the statement made on Friday on the subject of liner trains adds to our suspicion about what is likely to happen to the money. It is with regret that we cannot fully debate what is behind the request for this money because of lack of information given to the House. However, I should be grateful if at least the two small items of information that I have requested could be made available by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. John Morris: At this late hour I will try very briefly to answer the points that have been put during the debate.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) first asked whether the calculations about London Transport included some pay rises. They took probable pay rises into account.
Secondly, he asked whether the proportionate use of the liner trains was taken into account. I have indicated a substantial increase in the use of liner trains. The figure of 30 per cent. was given in February, but when I answered a Question a fortnight ago it was 66 per cent. With regard to the computation of the total of £800 million, to which we are referring—that is a round sum allowing or a safety margin—the liner trains make no significant difference. We calculated that sufficient margin should be allowed to British Railways to operate for the next two-and-a-half years so that it would not be necessary to come back to the House for the purpose of getting finance.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) used strong language, including the word "disgrace". He dug a pit for himself in that he made great play of Clause 2. I am sorry that it was not possible for me in my Second Reading speech to reply to some of the points he had made during the debate. Had I been able to do so, I would have old him again that this is a stop-gap Bill for the waterways and that we hope, in our White Paper, to publish some of our proposals for the waterways. Certainly no discourtesy to him was intended. But had the hon. Gentleman been here on Friday and raised these matters on Clause 1, there would have been ample opportunity to discuss them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) told us that when he first saw the Bill he looked reasonably upon it. I therefore searched the Division Lists to find out how he behaved on Thursday night, but he did not, in fact, vote on the Opposition Amendment. He was not with his comrades in arms. I do not want to do him an injustice, but I must point out that only a few minutes earlier he had voted on the previous issue before the House. I suppose that some ideological difference arose in that he was able to be with his colleagues in the first Division but not in the second, which concerned this Bill.
The hon. Gentleman may have been present during Wednesday's debate, but lie was not here for the full and comprehensive discussion we had on Friday.
Had he been present, he would have realised that, as we have said on a number of occasions, this is a stop-gap Bill. Tonight, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the socially essential purposes would be paid for in the Bill and what we intended to do about financing these things. If he understands the purpose of the Measure, he will see that we are merely financing British Railways' existing statutory obligations. The Bill is necessary as a stop-gap measure to pro. vide British Railways with finance while we are bringing our policy before the House, first in a White Paper and then in legislation which will come into effect in 1968. That is the time scale that will operate under the provisions of the Bill and that is why it is so necessary.
The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) also had protests to make. He is not present now and certainly was not present on Friday. Had he been present then, he could have raised many of these points about the waterways. I hope that, when we debate the White Paper, he will be able to be present. We shall be grateful if he is.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made a long and interesting speech. I have heard him in different guises. When I first entered the House he was sitting below the gangway on the Government benches, always in furious indignation against the nationalised industries. Then, at the Ministry of Power, he was engaged in bringing in Bills and Orders for borrowing powers to seek more money for them. As he is not now with us, however, he will not accuse me of discourtesy if I do not reply to the points he made in his speech tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Willis.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY SERVICES, YARMOUTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

1.25 a.m.

Dr. Hugh Gray: I am second to none in the House in my admiration, professionally, personally and ideologically, for the Minister of Transport. She stands for an integrated system of transport throughout the country, and by integration I take it that she is to draw together, to knit together, to create a framework of some kind, to get rid of duplication. I take it that she does not mean that she is to destroy, to take away already existing facilities. The Railways Board is pleased to use the word "rationalisation", which I take to mean to order in accordance with the dictates of reason, again not to destroy, not to take away.
I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that she would consult the East Anglian Regional Planning Council, but in my constituency there is some alarm because we do not have a representative on that council and we are naturally concerned that the integration of transport within the constituency should be considered. The Minister naturally takes the macro-view of the total situation. Representing the territorial area, I necessarily take the micro-view.
I would like first to say something about the town of Yarmouth. Its internal road system is good. It is true that for many years the council has been hoping to build either a tunnel or a bridge across the River Yare and that the need for a second river crossing is desperate, but, unfortunately, there is no trunk road in Yarmouth near the river and so the money for the crossing cannot be obtained from the Government. It is too late to cry for the railway line which used to run from Yarmouth to King's Lynn. The rails have been torn up and the old railway station is now being used as a bus station.
Communications between Yarmouth and Lowestoft are threatened. On Sundays there is to be no service at all. But in my concern for the constituency I think not solely of the town but also of the rural areas outside it. I urge on

my hon. Friend that when there are curtailments of services leading to the disposal of railway land, the land should be offered to the Yarmouth county borough council before disposal.
I want to spotlight the small village of Reedham. By rail it is only six miles from Yarmouth, but by road it is 13 miles, half of it narrow roads which are not suitable for bus services. Like so many villages on the railway line in my constituency, Reedham has no bus services and, with the narrowness of the roads, I doubt whether one could be operated. Many people used the railway to go to work in Yarmouth, including a surprisingly large number of children going to school. In a previous speech, I drew attention to the plight of people who wish to attend churches on Sundays, because in the autumn Sunday services are to be withdrawn. This is not only a social deprivation. I suggest that it is typical of the economic shortsightedness of the railways in their costing.
I was recently having a conversation with a lady, who told me that because she could not go to either Norwich or Yarmouth Catholic churches on a Sunday in future, she would be forced to buy a car. She is a regular traveller on the railway during the week. The railways look at the Sunday services, they cost them in narrow terms, they withdraw trains. To many of my constituents, however, it seems that they are indulging in self-fulfilling prophecies. They say that these railways are not paying, and the action which they take ensures that they pay even less. People are driven to get cars.
One sees this kind of thing happening in other ways. For example, a farmer who sends 200 head of cattle a month by rail was able in the past to send them from the village station of Reedham. Now he has to send them into Norwich and despatch them from Norwich. He finds this extremely inconvenient and he is looking round for a cheaper way of sending them by road. But again, looking to the future, these lorries are congesting the centre of the city. As the city grows and overspills, and there is reason to think that thousands of people will be resettled within ten miles of the city, this kind of congestion will grow still further.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will realise that I am


trying to make the point of social costs. The railways tell us that they will provide bus trains. From one point of view, it will be a good development if these bus trains are run more regularly and more frequently than trains at present.
At the same time, the sacrifice of stations will be made. Stationless halts are talked of. I suggest to my hon. friend that stations, like public houses and churches, have latent as well as overt functions. They provide centres of contact. People come together on them. They share certain services in common. One is breaking the texture of rural life if one closes public houses, churches or stations.
This is a sparsely inhabited countryside. As I have said, it is without bus services. I was extremely hopeful when I heard that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was thinking of using postal buses for the purpose of transporting people. There are few footpaths. Children have dangerous walks to school. We have an authority which in many cases refuses to provide transport for children when they have less than three miles to travel to rural schools.
I suggest that in a constituency like Yarmouth, in a zone like East Anglia, which should have received special consideration long ago as an underdeveloped area, very careful attention and scrutiny should be given before curtailments of services are allowed.
If these services are cut down, villages will become still more isolated. Services between Lowestoft and Yarmouth are threatened. These two towns have many common interests in terms of light industry and the occupations they pursue. They are both towns with holiday seasons. They should be linked together. One sees that probably the objective of the railways in cutting out freight from the small village stations, apart from being preparatory to shutting them down, is to increase the amount of traffic that goes into Norwich. It is well known that the line from London to Ipswich has always been profitable. Not so the line from Ipswich to Norwich. The policy of the railways seems to be to ignore the convenience of people who live in rural areas and force them to go into Yarmouth or Norwich.
Quite recently the railways withdrew cheap day facilities from rural stations to London. Following a vigorous campaign by a militant consumer in Brundall, the authorities agreed that cheap day tickets, in a different form, should be restored to the stations for Brundall and Lingwood. A double ticket could be written out, one to Norwich and one from Norwich to London. That facility has not been extended to other stations, including Reedham. This was one of the pointers which led to suspicions among the inhabitants of this village, and among railwaymen, that the Railways Board was thinking of closing the station down. Fortunately, I put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I was assured that at the moment no such proposal has been received. One hopes that it never will be.
When one sits in London, or even Norwich, it may seem extravagant that there are two small branch lines running from Norwich to Yarmouth. One goes from Norwich via Acle and the other via Reedham. They are supplying essential services to the countryside. I appreciate that the Railways are trying to cut administrative costs and reduce the scale of administrative services, hence the new scheme for cheap tickets. This is extremely good, particularly if, as we hear, two single tickets are going to be equivalent to one cheap day return.
If this kind of policy is adopted people will start to use the railway. Indeed they have no alternative. They must use them or buy a motor car, unless buses and postal vans are provided for carrying passengers. My plea to my hon. Friend is that in thinking about an integrated transport policy, in an overall way, for the country, at regional and local level, he will look at the facilities already existing. One cannot integrate what is not there. I hope that he will not only consider, if he takes something away, putting something in its place, but that he will look at what is not already there and then decide if the services have to be reduced, if these stations have to be closed, and if bus trains are to be substituted for the trains running between Norwich and Yarmouth, that these services are operated frequently.
I hope that he will also do something to dispel the suspicions of railwaymen that no savings are being made. Many


railwaymen seem to think that offices in Norwich are growing and becoming stuffed with people who are being transferred from other railway stations. I trust that this is false. There must be real savings made in the economies if they are to be justified, although in my view economies cannot be justified unless social costs are costed in. I cannot believe that a Socialist Government will look only at the pecuniary calculus. They must cost in all these other considerations.
In the brief time that I have had I I have only mentioned a few points but I know that my hon. Friend is already conversant with the same kind of situation in many parts of the country. If he can do something to allay the apprehensions of my constituents he will be performing a service to them and many other people elsewhere.

1.40 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): We have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray). May I congratulate him for being able to make a speech without the aid of notes? It is something which I have not been able to do, and I am sure that his constituents will be proud of the very cogent way in which he has advanced his case for an integrated and efficient transport system in his constituency.
I have a great deal of sympathy with him. I come from one of the most rural areas in Wales, and I know some of the problems that are involved. Only a fortnight ago, I went to a sort of teach-in, at which representatives of two county councils and four or five local authorities in the area were present, to discuss some of the problems that had arisen in the post-closure period. Coming as I do from the same area, I know the great problems that exist in taking off a rail service and the financial problems of rural bus undertakings in being able to provide a decent alternative service.
On the first issue of integration, perhaps I might make it clear where we stand. As I said a fortnight ago when answering the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), the Minister is deter-

mined to stabilise our railway system at the earliest possible moment.
Everyone now accepts that the Transport Act, 1962, gave to the Railways Board an impossible and unrealistic task. The task that it had was of paying its way within the present financial structure. As the figures have come out year by year, they have shown how impossible that has been.
The programme for passenger closures proposed by Dr. Beeching in his Report on the Reshaping of British Railways was based on that commercial objective. One thing which has become clear is that the country will not stand for the butchering of the railway system, and there must be wider considerations than £ s. d. Those are important in themselves, and obviously some pruning must go on. But that is a very different picture from the ruthless doing away with services, merely looking at £ s. d. without taking into account the very important social considerations to which my hon. Friend referred.
When considering a particular closure, the Minister now has the advice of the economic planning council concerned. Those councils were not in existence before the Labour Government came into office—certainly not when the 1962 Act came into operation. Their advice ensures that a particular line is not considered in isolation.
My hon. Friend indicated that there was not a member of the economic planning council from his own constituency. It is a problem to ensure that all interests, industries and people involved in an area are represented, and obviously a fine geographical distribution without overburdening a planning council with a very large number of people is one of the problems which beset those appointing such a body.
The present planning council is able to look at the whole area in general and any part of that area in particular. It is able to give the right kind of advice about the future needs of the area on planning grounds when my Minister has to decide whether a particular rail closure should go through. We regard that as a very important step. As my hon. Friend knows, in addition we have the reports of the T.U.C.C.s on hardship, as laid down in the Act.
Since I have been in this office I have seen a large number of hon. Members from both sides of the House—as my predecessor did—who have told me of their concern about railway lines in their constituencies. This shows that there is strong body of opinion which would welcome a change in the framework in which the railways operate, to give more attention to social as distinct from commercial considerations. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend hopes to publish her White Paper on transport this summer, setting out the ideas on which she is now working. It would be wrong for me to anticipate the contents of the White Paper, but I can say that this is certainly among the matters which the is considering.
I think that the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend fall into two groups. The first concerns railway passenger closures. The Railways Board has to give advance notice of its intention with regard to any line, and when it is ready to go ahead with a closure proposal it makes an announcement locally so that the people most concerned are properly informed. But in future the Board will be able to carry out the closure procedure only after obtaining he Minister's permission at this stage. The whole point of this arrangement is that no proposal is allowed to go forward if it is obviously unacceptable from the start as being in conflict with broad planning considerations.
Users of the services can make representations to the T.U.C.C., and are usually able to expand their problems later at a public hearing. A report is then made to the Minister, and where the T.U.C.C. thinks it appropriate, it makes recommendations for additional bus services. Thus, together with the advice of the economic planning council, the Minister has a great deal of evidence before coming to a decision. It is my right hon. Friend's policy not to give her consent in any case where unacceptable hardship would arise, or where closure would conflict with the economic future of the area.
But even where my right hon. Friend allows a closure, there is another safeguard. If there is any chance that a need for services might arise as the result of a long-term planning decision, she will

not allow the Railways Board to dispose of the route of the line. Then, if such development takes place there is no physical barrier to restoring the services in the future. This is an important and valuable arrangement. As regards bus services provided as an alternative, my right hon. Friend can vary the conditions to secure improvements if they become necessary in the course of time.
The second group concerns day-to-day management matters. These are the responsibility of the Railways Board which has a large measure of commercial freedom to settle its policy on passenger services, freight services, and fares.
On the questions raised by my hon. Friend about the transport needs of the area, perhaps I might refer first to the Yarmouth Vauxhall to Norwich line. I am able to say that neither of the lines from Yarmouth to Norwich were included in the Reshaping Report, nor in any subsequent announcement, and the Board has said that it has no closure proposals at present for either line. In saying this, the Board points out that it maintains a continuous review of the services in every area. For reasons of economy, the regional management is proposing to reduce Sunday train services on this line. These proposals do not require the Minister's sanction. The right course for anyone aggrieved is to make an approach to the management direct. If the cuts still take place, representations can be made to the T.U.C.C. for East Anglia, which can, if it feels the complaints are justified, make representations accordingly.
Another issue is the need for more buses for villages affected by cuts in rail services. This can be taken up direct with the bus operators who will, I am sure, carefully examine any concrete and well-supported ideas.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of cheap day tickets. As he said, these are available from Reedham to Brundall. Similar tickets in the reverse direction were withdrawn last January because of the small demand. Cheap day tickets are available from Brundall, Lingwood and Reedham to Norwich. The Board has also arranged for cheap day tickets from Norwich to London to be issued at Brundall and Lingwood to avoid re-booking at Norwich. I am given to understand


that representations by my hon. Friend were instrumental in getting these arrangements affected.
The other line to Yarmouth, about which my hon. Friend has also asked some questions, runs between Yarmouth South Town station and Lowestoft Central. The line was listed for closure in the Beeching Report, but the Railways Board has taken no further action to carry out these proposals. It is investigating the possibility of reducing the operating costs sufficiently to justify retaining a modified service on the line. This would include reducing the line to a single track with the minimum signalling consistent with safety. The stations would be reduced to unstaffed halts and tickets would be issued on the trains.
My hon. Friend asked some specific questions about freight services in his constituency. As I have explained, this is a matter for the Board, but it has outlined the position for me. Its policy is to concentrate freight facilities on fewer and larger depots. Following up this policy it closed the depot at Haddiscoe last month. The depots at Acle, Ling-wood, Gorleston, Yarmouth South Town and Lowestoft North will be closed later this year. Freight traffic will then be concentrated on the depots at Yarmouth Vauxhall and Lowestoft Central. As for the point made about cattle offered for rail transit to Norwich at Reedham, the position is that Reedham station was closed to freight traffic in July, 1964. For

such a short journey as this it would not be worth sending the cattle by road to an alternative rail depot.
I am happy to have been able to reply to my hon. Friend in positive terms. What I have been able to say in reply shows that the Railways Board is keenly interested in making the best possible use of the system in the Yarmouth area by methods of improved operation and management. In this area, as in other parts of the country, the Minister will ensure that the place of the railways in its economy and development will be carefully examined in any proposal that comes before her. This is the most important part of all.
In the course of the debate on the Bill which we have just discussed I was asked some pertinent questions about the cost of the extra scrutiny we take whenever there is a proposal for closure. I was able to indicate to the House on a number of occasions how much this would be. I am very proud of the machinery set up by my right hon. Friend's predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser)—for looking very carefully into all these applications to ensure that the right decision is taken, and that the travelling public in any area has a proper and adequate transport system.

Question put and agreed.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.